Many people think that population growth is no longer a problem, and everybody somehow knows that it is politically incorrect to talk about it. Example: by 2050 130 million Ugandans, and it will be the twelfth biggest country in the world, with more peo
"Thousands of couples in India who agreed to put off having babies for at least two years after their wedding will collect cash payments this month as health officials attempt to curb the country's rapidly growing population. "
Sounds like a good idea to me! Wish *I* could claim ....
it would be awesome if those who didn't have kids could get tax incentives and other cash rewards. i always thought it backwards to give tax breaks to those with children.
most with children could care less what kind of world we all leave this place for any future generations at all. you can see it in the way they lead their lives and their kids don't know anything about restoring and preserving the world and ALL its inhabitants.
[ send green star]
Center for Biological Diversity's new campaign on overpopulation August 18, 2009 12:46 AM
This is a link to news about the Center for Biological Diversity's new campaign on human overpopulation and how in their view it is driving the sixth great mass extinction in the Earth's 4-billion year history:
Center for Biological Diversity August 18, 2009 2:54 PM
that's a great organization - i've been on their emailing list for quite some time and am quite active with their causes and try to donate when i can. they have a number of very worthy causes many people here on care2 would be interested in.
i'm so glad this reputable group is addressing the overpopulation issue. it's been ignored for toooooo many decades!
How can talking about overpopulation be taboo? We sit here and talk about how we are using our natural resources at an unnatural rate... knowing it is the humans "needing"... then go and pop out another million children... unthinkable! unimaginable! I have NEVER kept quiet about overpopulation. I have one son, and even with no money to go to the doctor for any type of birth control, I do EVERYTHING to not get pregnant again WITHIN MY CAPABILITIES! I have so many people, relatives especially, telling me to have more! Are they joking? I didn't like being pregnant to begin with! I am so happy I had the experience, I LOVE MY SON But to ask me to do it again... I won't do it on purpose!
From the article, I see that Laurence Frank, a Berkeley wildlife biologist who runs several lion conservation projects in Kenya, says that the decline of the big cats is due to the inexorable growth in human population and consequent conflict with people over livestock.
Perhaps the "inexorable growth in human population" needs to be looked at and addressed. I wonder whether the problems are likely to be be resolved otherwise. There are most likely all sorts of issues and cultural sensitivities around this kind of thing, but if we humans seriously want to save other species and ecosystems, I think we are going to have to ask these hard questions - and come up with good answers.
What is happening to the lions in Kenya might be an example of what the Center for Biological Diversity is concerned about in its new campaign about human population (link in a posting above and also here): http://www.care2.com/news/member/126215289/1224439 .
Every single living person on this Earth has it's own value and do has a natural task to perform, the continuation of life. Problems as overpopulation all over the world will be resolved in natural ways. Famine, desease, lack of water and war are the natural soluctions.
Politics should face the overpopulation issue in order to prevent all those future misery. Alas I don't have any faith that nor politics neither common people can commit themselves for the sake of humanity.
Due to this all that remains are those natural soluctions.
News item - Human overpopulation is the #1 threat to animals worldwide: September 11, 2009 12:58 AM
This is a news item posted by Cher.
Human Overpopulation Is the #1 Threat to Animals Worldwide:
Human overpopulation is an animal rights issue as well as an environmental issue and a human rights issue. Human activities, including mining, transportation, pollution, agriculture, development, and logging, take habitat away from wild animals as well...
An "eminent economist calling on world governments to reduce population growth and work together to keep climate change from causing an immense human catastrophe" it's a very naive call to say at least.
Thousand of years long we copulate and reproduce ourselves millions and millions of times, we create new worlds destroying civilisations, we've been selfish, egocentric, used and misused the natural resources of the Earth and now those eminenties start to calling: "look back and change your behavior"!
In the between we keep going the way we always did before. One difference, now we've growing by billions we can easly finish our destructive job.
I do not believe that we're able to change our "life philosophy". Even if we could it wouldn't be enough anymore.
it disgusts me that countries like Africa have so many children when the ones they have already are dying of starvation and desease. they just continue to have child after child. it is horrible the suffering of these innocent children who never asked to be born, and who end up never contributing to society because they die horrible slow deaths as children.
It angers me religious leaders are so stupid and callicous. the Bible is not even Gods words yet so many religious groups use it as thier excuss to overpopulate the earth.
Also countries like Irag, IRan etc do not give woman the choice of whether to have more childern. what is wrong with the stupid men of these countries that they do not prevent more children themselves? it is thier ignorant stupid beliefs that many children make them macho and rich and are looked up to in thier society for having "many sons"
Elena, that has to be an old story because the Duggans were featured on a "reality" TV show where they had 19 and she was pregant again and that was about two years ago. It was "updated" recently that they now have 21 kids and their oldest son just became a father as well, at the ripe OLD age of 20.
In scrolling down thru this topic to comment on Elena's statement, I saw yours, Michelle..........about doing what you can to exercise birth control while not being financially able to go to a doctor. Well, I realize it was posted months ago, BUT just wanted to say that condoms are available at any drugstore, at Walmart, wherever, and they're CHEAP. You don't need to see a doctor! There are many ways that are even cheaper than that, but I won't insult you with mentioning them. If you're not covered by health insurance as far as seeing a doctor to get a script for birth control pills, there are free clinics that will provide them as well.
[ send green star]
If the conservatives get their way, birth control in any form will be extremely difficult to obtain anywhere. It is a very disturbing trend with the republican party they are going the way of the Duggars and or religious right extremist driven now.
This will doom all of us for sure if we are not already.
I dont know what is more scarey, these religious nuts having 19, 20 or an astonishing 21 children or the morons spouting the following under the posted article:
sparklenshine722: They don't use birth control, they have consensual marital relations as people in healthy marriages do, and therefore children are a result. So this dimwit thinks that (like many Christians) you should only have sex to reproduce, suggesting that if you do otherwise you are not in a healthy marraige?
Janice:I think Michelle and Jim-Bob are wonderful parents and have it all together. Their children are incredibly well behaved and enjoy life to the fullest. Bravo to the entire Duggar family. Really Janice? Wonderful parents? Gee wonder how much attention you can give your children when you farm them out to their siblings for care. Bravo? Really?
Kristin: Guess what people, its none of your business how many children these people have! It might not be my personal choice to have a large family, but thats what they want. Yeah, Kristin, it is our business when idiots cant control themselves and begin abusing the Earths resources, then claim God chose me to do it...
Michelle in OK: Now, children are not taught the importance of family. I am the mother of 6. Children are not easy to raise, but God does give some of us the responsibility of more children than others, for a reason. First Michelle, youve already proven yourself to be without conscience by have 6 kids, and of course you would claim that God made you do it since it couldn't possibly be because you were too stupid to have sex without protection.
Amanda Edge: I occasionally watch the show and I'm in awe of this family. Well behaved well adjusted children who love God and try to do the right thing. What more could you ask for? Well, Amanda, Im in awe of them too but for a different reason.
Vicki: I think the Duggar's are a wonderful example of God's Love in Action. I could never have that many children but Michelle has a special ANOINTING (look it up "naysayers: !) to do her job. Gods Love in Action? Anointing? I looked up anointing, seems like she was anointed all right but not with Wer perfumed oil, milk, water or melted butter but of some other substance. We're naysayers? Try reading something other than the bible maybe your vocabulary wouldnt sound so trite and just maybe you might wind up with some kind of real knowledge of what a male female relationship should be. Clue: it's not a baby factory.
God & Peace: Only unhappy, small minded, selfish people can make negative remarks about something so beautiful. Having 21 kids is beautiful?
amy: way to go Duggars! i applaud you all! honest, dependable, responsible,honest and Godly. There should be more people like that on this earth! If there were more people like that on this earth wed all be starving to death.
David S: . While that is their business, keep in mind Mr. Duggar was once a state congressman in either Arkansas or Georgia (can't remember which state). He tried to lead legislation to get birth control outlawed in that state. Needless to say, it went nowhere; but when one tries to legislate private religious beliefs to force on everyone else, then it is no longer just their business. Oh, now I get it, it's about politics and Mr. Duggar is hell bent on proving why birth control should be outlawed.....it's more like an exercise in how to prove why birth control should be mandatory but dimbulb doesn't get it.
This one takes the cake Pott 54 : I used to think this woman & her husband were crazy--but now I feel this BEAUTIFUL woman and her LOVING provider of a husband can have as many DAMN kids as they want. They're not asking any ONE of you self-righteous morons for a DAMN THING. Their faith is in GOD and to one another. Of course all of you twits who were idolizing the likes ot Tiger Woods and other entertainers and athletes as role models can't even fathom the kind of love this couple has for one another--let alone the love this REAL MAN has for his wife and children. To you naysayers---go scratch yourselves. Takes a real man to single handedly attempt to overpopulate his county, to stress out his older daughters and make them the slaves to his uncontrollable, egotistic libido? What an idiot.
I have a better one for you regarding that first comment. There was a site here started by some priests who were taking confessions (privately) and answering questions (publicly), which prompted some newspapers to write a few amused articles. One of the quoted questions was from a man who was wondering if it's against God's will to make achieving orgasm (particularly making sure that his wife also does) the focus of lovemaking even if they don't take any precautions against preganancy. The priest's answer was that yes it was, because God said that sex is meant for procreation, which requires the man orgasming inside the woman's vagina and nothing else, so making anything else the focus of the act is against His will. So what would you expect from fundies?
Robert, Yeah, that's the one....I've heard the "sex is only for procreation" many times in the past (amongst many other weird sayings), somehow, it seems, Catholic Priests didn't get the message though. I guess Debbie and I, married for 35 years, just haven't had a "healthy marriage!" Who would have thought?
Ken, I loved every one of your comments/rebuttals! If "God" says that sex between a man and a woman should ONLY happen to procreate, then what about animals? We are one of the few species who does have "sex" just for fun, but there are others. I watched a special on the Bonobo, who science says is actually closer to humans in DNA than chimps...............almost 99% identical. They are very "chimp-like" in appearance, but much more endangered, and totally gentle and vegetarian, whereas chimps can be extremely aggressive and also are cannibalistic at times. Anyway, in "bonobo society", they do have disagreements, and "spats", and they settle their differences by having sex! It's also done to reproduce, of course, but that's not the only time, and according to the researchers, they have sex dozens of times in a day, all year round. It's a way of showing affection, saying they're "sorry" or submission/dominance............many "reasons".
I may be digressing by what I said about bonobos, so getting back "on topic".....most all of the reasons some of those people you referred to as saying sex is to procreate only, or because "God" said that was normal (insinuating any other reason wasn't) is using religion as an excuse to be irresponsible. It almost amounts to when little kids do something wrong and blame a sibling or said "Daddy said it was okay", etc.
Yes, Jim-Bob (Duggar) was a former congressman, I think in Arkansas. That explains it, doesn't it. I don't think he's trying to single-"handedly" populate the state to get revenge on his former constituents for not passing "his" law by setting such an example.......he's just a selfish idiot.
Oh, this is probably not an appropriate place to bring up the fact that a man CAN have "sex" alone, either, LOL! Well, so can a woman. In fact, I counted half a dozen shopping channels on TV geared towards that "goal" the other night when surfing. I doubt that procreating would be a "sought'after" result.
The priest's answer was that yes it was, because God said that sex is meant for procreation, which requires the man orgasming inside the woman's vagina and nothing else, so making anything else the focus of the act is against His will........
Typical nonsense from a Catholic priest. That being the case, then I suppose if the man was sterile (or the woman, for that matter) and couldn't reproduce, then he and his wife should stop having sex altogether?
Orthodox priest, being from over here, but that'd be a good question )
And yeah, Bonobos (actually a type of chimp, and yeah, closest in DNA to us) do have sex A LOT and for pretty much any reason, including simple boredom (if I remember correctly bisexual females are also pretty much the norm among them, not sure about males) and as a means to settle disputes, as violence is almost unknown among them. And there are also dolphins to add to that list, who have to be creative for it anyway, as there's nothing to lie on or hold on to, and they couldn't hold on to anything (or even to each other) anyway due to lack of hands, so how that works is that you need at least 2 males for 1 female, and while the couple is doing the deed the 2nd male swims against her, pressing her into the first one because otherwise it'd be sort of like in space, he thrusts and she bounces away (and of course after the first is done they switch and he returns the favor for the 2nd, no fights over who gets to do it there, they need each other). And heard something about lions too a couple of times, but not sure.
In response to the African countries. Unfortunately Many if not all of the African women are raped and or forced to have sex without even condoms. Now the Catholic faith is trying to get them to abandon any forms of birth control.
The women really have very little protection in Africa. I do not believe it is their procreating aimlessly.
I have many documentaries on video regarding dolphins and whales, and actually, it's one dominant male and one female, and somehow, Mother Nature makes it happen. I just record a special on the Humpback Whale, and it does clearly show the mating procedure............there may be multiple males in the area, but the dominant one (the "protector") will protect the female from all others until she shows definite willingness to mate, and then he will mate with her and keep her away from all other males until she is no longer interested, so his "genes" are insured. I'm sure dolphins and other marine mammals are similar. As for the African Lion, it is again, the dominant male in a pride of many females, usually 4 - 8, and he is the father of ALL their cubs. When he is challenged by a "bachelor" (all males over the age of 1 - 2 years of age are run out of the pride by him) he will either fight or run off, and if he fights and isn't the winner, it's pretty much a certaintly that he will be driven off and probably die from his wounds. Then, the "conquorer" (challenger) will systematically kill off all of the young cubs, no matter what their sex, so the females will come back into estrus and he will then mate with each of them, thereby perpetuating HIS genes. It's grizzly and horrible to watch, but it's Mother Nature "in action".
Re, the situation in Africa.........it's sad that women are sometimes victims in civil wars, not having the power to dictate what happens to their own bodies, and no access to education or a "future", but at the risk of coming across as completely insensitive, I'm pretty sick and tired of hearing about countries which have been in civil wars and practicing genocide for hundreds of years, yet still produce enough children to never threaten the population.......quite the opposite. I'm wondering if these people ever know what they're even fighting about in the first place. Little of it makes any sense to me, never has. So, I'm asked to donate money to stop the genocide and the killing, then donate money to educate the population about birth control, then donate money to help the billions of starving children. Where does it end? I've just about gotten to the point where I say, "let 'em kill each other all off and address two issues at the same time".
It's terrible that any woman should be the victim of rape from soldiers who are either supposedly there to protect her, or from the "opposition", but it's never going to stop until those cultures decide to stop it. What on EARTH are they even trying to gain? Is it land, or resources? It can't be domination of the population if they're going in and killing everyone they encounter, including innocent civilians.
Where my sympathies and interests are going is to save the animals caught up in these wars, such as the lowland gorilla and the mountain gorilla, who's habitat is being wiped out and they are nearly extinct.
I know exactly how you feel! Frustrated to pulling out hair on oneself! I think it is even worse now because we are so informed and aware of what is happening and we are becoming globalized to the point that we are all affecting each other very heavily. i just wish that the men in Africa would stop thinking that having children is all they are worth. They need educating but how? I just don't get it after all these years why are some countries so behind? Oh that is right religious beliefs have taken them over.
The role of contraception in reducing abortion June 27, 2010 8:35 AM
Hello good people! I'm a quite old member of this group, but this is the first time I post something here. Sorry, I'm busy and I don't have the time right now to properly read all of your posts, but I'll catch up some other day.
Right now I wont to share something with you.
I have found an interesting article that might be helpful for many people. I totally agree with the idea that the human population should start to stabilize and the population boom should be stopped. The reasons are so evident that I think is no use to talk about. The question is not IF we must do that, but HOW to manage it?
Put it short, there are non-invasive ways :
- 1. One way is chastity/abstinence - an old method used since immemorial times. - 2. The other way is contraception - more effectively in our times.
And there are also invasive ways.
- The abortion - a method more sure today but still has its limitations and risks. Besides of that it is very controversial.
In this situation is obvious that there should be promoted the non-invasive methods, and they should go hand by hand.
What bothers me most is the fact that the so called pro-life militants pledge not only against abortion, but also against the other contraceptive methods. With the risk to upset someone, I say that this is an absurd and irresponsible attitude.
They say that contraception and abortion goes together, witch is a total nonsense. The real fact is that the two methods don't go together, but they leave that impression because many secular organizations promote them both. But that is a social fact (so is a pure happening), not a scientific fact (a causal relation). But the scientific fact is that non-invasive contraception drops the levels of abortion rates. After all, is logical.
Had three children, got sterilised and had no more. I am so happy I did, love my children and couldn't live without them. Taught them about contraception and made condoms available for their use. Sounds cruel but I told my daughter that if she had a child it was hers not mine and that she would have to take on the responsibility by herself, result is no children. Reading through the postings on this page I am shocked at the Duggars 21 children, gluttons for punishment, Am against the Popes decree and the lies told about contraception in Africa mostly because of the aids situation, if he is so influential why doesn't he do something to stop the raping of women and change the way they are treated ? Our 'friends' in Saudia Arabia are discussing passing a bill which will mean women who breast feed their children until they are 2 years old [by law] will have to consent to giving the remaining breast milk to men, it doesn't specify what men and what relationship they are to the women. When a woman can be stoned for being raped in this part of the world I think more education would help solve some of their problems. Once again it is the big corporations which are clearing the forests, jungles and arable land killing off our animals. Over population means more forestry being cleared, more arable lands being used to house rather than feed. It must be controlled but done in a humane way, not culling.How can priests even discuss sex when they are sworn to a celibate existence, surely common sense would tell you ignore their advice.
are there really people out there that see contraception as being the same as abortion? Ouch... Personally I am anti abortion, except for special circumstances, ie, rape or pregnancy causing death of the mother. Abortion under the wrong circumstances causes extreme depression, ive seen it, and it causes chaos! I've had 2 beautiful healthy children, and the idea of having more is actually a tad scary to me... So imaging someone with 21 kids is just plain unimaginable for me! I use contraception, this is a tad personal but i'll share, i use the injection method, and that involves me getting just 4 injections a year, once every 3 months... how difficult is that??? There are no side effects, no weight gain, no dramatic mood swings. Just the security of knowing that I have the choice! What if (God forbid) something happened to my two angels? They saved me, gave me reason to breathe. They are a gift from the Universe to me and i am grateful for their existence every day of my life. My choice has enabled me to be the best mom i can be to them, and give them the best chance at succeeding in life. However i know that even though a child cannot be replaced, having another baby down the line, might help heal those wounds of having lost a child...
Contraception is the way!!!
Have a good Monday everyone!
I agree with Ken completely! Thats almost a first! Great post Ken.
Why would we listen to or not chastise the same people who jailed Galileo, thought the world was flat, stoned witches, and still stone women today? My money says their God is ashamed of them.
Wake up people! move into the light! Practice religion any way you like but when you see tenants that are just blatantly stupid and unsupportable... stand up!
Here's some stories: Get most of what you need here: http://www.overpopulation.org/
an interesting one here almost positive but they still believe capping population at 8B will be ok. almost three times a more sustainable number.
May God's peace be with you!
I just spent about half an hour reading everyone's posts and links...all I can say is how amazed I am that people like the Duggars actually exist and worse, are applauded for their ignorance...what I find incredibly scary as I observe the world around me is that the people that are procreating on a mass scale are the ignorant, while the enlightened are the ones that are scaling back. Let's do the math....who will we have more of in the years to come?? Living in a country that refuses to even acknowledge the issue of overpopulation, still rewards those who continue to have babies born into poverty and keeps them in poverty, and is rife with anti-birth control tea party self-righteous right wingers...no wonder we have overpopulation issues
Yet something may (emphasize "may") be moving in certain areas: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10578484 It'll likely take way too long and come up at best with some infuriatingly weak and inadequate recommendations, if any, but we'll see...
Robert, cool link. Scrolling down to the bottom of the page there are several other links going all the way back to 2007. Though I appreciate the Royal Society's study I wish they had started this study in the 60's when I became aware of overpopulation. They allude to the fact that Overpopulation "is a topic that has gone to and fro in the last few decades, and appears to be moving back up the political agenda now," Well Duh? I'm with you on the whole insanity of our governments not getting deadly serious about the problem and taking "infuriatingly too long" to come up with solutions, solutions that, no doubt are well past the tipping point. Thanks for the links. Kristi, as usual, you are on the mark again....ken
Monica, great link to the Easter Island topic. I've always been fascinated with the whole Easter Island thing early on. There's no doubt that we should be learning the lessons taught by their demise, but we aren't it seems. Robert, I loved that article and there is no question that all of us here have been grilled by friends and relatives about our choice not to have children. It's like we're anti-humans or something....Thanks to both of you for posting those links, timely, informative and fascinating...ken
Robert, thanks for posting the article. Wow...people are so disrespectful. When will the general population realize that not having a child (for whatever reason) is as much their choice to make as having one? Just like not everyone could be a teacher, not everyone was cut out to be or wants to be, a parent.
I found it interesting that when women do become mothers, they get treated like second class citizens (lower wages, etc), but that if they choose the opposite they still get treated that way through (unwarranted) q's and comments...
It is common when the discussion of overpopulation arises to hear the word "natural" in reference to the pros and cons of contraception and right to procreate. The other disturbing theory is that miraculously "nature" will intervene and limit fertility and or reduce population with biblical ferocity. This is not much different from the "Divine intervention" gang lead by the Pope and other religionists. In reply to this philosophy; go and wander round a 19th century or earlier graveyard and see the number of young children buried therein. Until the intervention of evidence based medical science the infantile mortality rates throughout the world including the Western world was as high as 80%. Even in the very early days of hygiene and immunisation the mortality rate dropped dramatically and populations expanded rapidly. Being entirely natural in the field of human reproduction is to use no contraception and no scientific medicine or hygiene in other words revert to the world of our ancestors with a baby every year most of whom will die before the age of 6. We have rejected the whims of nature and use science to make a more tolerable life for ourselves. This scientific manipulation of nature has led us to believe that we have a right to place ourselves above it with no consequences whilst playing a childish natural game. Forget it; neither nature nor sky fairies will miraculously come to our aid, we will have to use intellect, science and plain old common sense to get us out of the predicament we created if its already not too late.
I agree that the situation in Africa has much more to do with men's attitudes than women being irresponsible. Often the men leave, or die, and the women have all those kids to support. Condom use absolutely MUST be promoted/expanded in Africa, more due to HIV/AIDs than even population. The suffering is just rampant. If the RC church is pro-life, you'd think they'd care about the little babies being conceived AFTER they get born, too, but I don't see much sympathy that children are either infected or orphaned.
Sadly the same tea party extreme "no birth control" people who are against any form of public assistance up to and including extending unemployment compensation, are not helping reduce the numbers of teen pregnancies, particularly among low-income populations. The misconceptions (no pun intended!) about pregnancy and STDs among these young parents is appalling. For me, I think either you let people have an option to not have the pregnancy in the first place, or you deal with the fact that some will choose abortions and others will need public assistance. Abstinence IS taught at my school, but then we know kids are cutting class to have sex, too, so the nurses help us teach about safe sex. Education is crucial. They don't understand how they can get pregnant the first time, or how boys will lie about condoms not fitting, etc.
I feel like it's wanting it both ways, and it's not working.
Don't even get me started on the Duggars!
Overpopulation News - how about some Evolvement August 04, 2010 6:33 AM
One of the good old chestnuts often repeated during the population debate by economists, politicians, priests and armchair philosophers often goes something like this one:
Who will care for the elderly generation? Always the younger generations will do it. Germany has a social insurance for the retired era. In poor countries own children pay for parents. Rich country citizen pay for insurance. Now it changed. Rich countries - rich people - less children. Social insurance has less payers. Poor countries - poor citizen - many children. Wealthy for everybody - less children. Ludger W
This gentleman is not alone in his thinking. Let us have a reality check. Please note that I only talk of places that I have lived in and where I speak the local language. Where I live in the UK, citizens are paid handsomely by the taxpayer to breed. A family like your Duggans will probably rake in about £40k a year just for having sex and popping out kids nice work if you can get it. Recent polls in the UK show that something like a 1/3 of young people who have left school and are under 35 stay at home with their parents. Over 40% of young children are brought up partially or fully by grandparents. Aggravated robbery by youngsters against the elderly is on the increase hardly the scenario described above. I was born in East Africa and have travelled and lived in East and South Africa. Fifty or more years ago the tribal group took care of the elderly and the younger generation were expected to do their bit. Those days have vanished. Perhaps I am delusional and my personal experiences where fantasy, but in modern sub-Saharan Africa amongst the struggling masses, I saw little or no evidence of the many children taking care of the elderly. Everyday in South Africa there are media, personal and anecdotal reports of pensioners being beaten up or killed by youngsters and their pensions and possessions taken from them. Frequently the perpetrators are their own children, grandchildren and other relatives. Often sexual assault plays a big part in these attacks. South Africa has one of the worlds highest suicide rates amongst the elderly. As the sister of a woman who leaped in front of a train not far from where I lived told me, She had been robbed and raped so many times by youngsters that she could not bear the thought of it happening once again. We need reality checks and not more and more uninformed armchair rhetoric from philosophers amateur and otherwise. The situation above is directly related to the producing of millions of unwanted children by parents who see this as merely a by-product of sexual gratification. This situation is much the same in East Africa and the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa. God knows when we will escape from the lame old excuses of religion, poverty, education, ethnic customs, morality, language and all the rest, and decide to evolve as a species. My Celtic ancestors amused themselves on a weekend by running around naked other than a covering of woad, chopping off the heads of their enemies. They celebrated success by the number of heads on spikes around their camp boundary. They worshipped gods residing in the local water supply by tossing in gold and the odd virgin every now and then. My ancestors many years ago (with the help of a spear or two in the butt) decided to EVOLVE and move on. Unfortunately educationalists, lawyers, priests and politicians are trying to prevent more progress in this area. The more we make excuses for Africa, Asia and the Middle East in terms of unchecked breeding the more we will hinder their right to EVOLVE as well!
Bernard, let me see if Im understanding you correctly. It appears you are saying that those of us here that are musing over what can be done about population control, or that are commenting on what we see in the world as utter lunacy are uniformed armchair philosphers. Im thinking that to make such a statement you dont include yourself in the category of armchair philosophers and we dont know if youre a professional or not since your profile doesnt indicate it. You do appear to be commenting rather vivedly, though a bit scattered, on the same points, just as though you were an armchair philosopher. As an aside its Duggars not Duggans. Also, I may be uninformed here, but I dont seem to grasp your intent on quoting Ludger Ws rather disjointed semi-illiterate poem since it equates only to the subject of care for the elderly. Nor do I understand your reference to habitual rape of grandmothers in a third world failed society although both might be construed to be direct results of overpopulation (though they are more likely results of poor to no law enforcement or punishment) but are hardly true in other third world countries particularly in India and SE Asia where the family unit is so strong that the elderly are not only taken care of with delight by their offspring but are held in an honored position in the family. You did state that you could comment only on countries youve actually resided in and speak the language. As for myself, Ive never lived in India or SE Asia nor do I speak the language but I dont think that precludes me from having an intelligent insight into their cultures since I do have very many close associates from those places, people whos families I am included in and who have spoken to me of what their societies are like and how they are indeed changing. Your reminding us of Celtic barbarism is a bit condescending as Im thinking that all of us here are quite aware of pre-industrialized/aboriginal cultures as a whole being rather unsophisticated in the way that they handled social structure. They were, however, much better at handling babies born with severe defects, blue babies, babies with cleft palats, one arm, three fingers etc., they merely put them out of their misery immediately rather than allow them to lead a miserable life and certainly weaken the gene pool by procreating. But again, whats your point? Help us out as well with your definition of an educationalist, its a term I havent heard til now and I would have thought it to be associated with a person who would be interested in spreading knowledge. You know, kind of like helping people to understand what overpopulation means, or that sex = babies, that sort of thing as well as conservation of natural resources being a byproduct of lowering population counts....perhaps Im wrong as your usage of the term seems to indicate something other than a positive act. Personally Ive not heard anyone on these boards make excuses for the unchecked breeding of the countries youve mentioned. They have commented on what might be the reasons for the problem and surmised what might be the remedy, but excuses do not come to mind. What might be more important is if we would stop rationalizing and start getting serious in the civilized countries, the US, the UK, Europe and Canada about just how overpopulated WE are then we can start talking about the third world countries that are populated by peoples so backward that many dont seem to comprehend the link between sex and children nor do they understand that birth control exists much less how to use it.
Ken thanks for reading my stuff and commenting on it. Firstly I have no axe to grind with the people including you who see excessive population as the single most important causative factor in species and habitat loss, pollution and so many other problems. The arm-chair philosophers I refer to (I perhaps should have been clearer) are not necessarily us humble souls discussing our views on a blog (Although we are all in a sense ACP's!) but the ones with real power and a large captive audience. These politicians, celebs, journalists, religionists, over-paid heads of charities and others snatch a fact or two out of the air that suits their philosophy rejecting or modifying the rest. As far as I can see on this blog at least, a fair number of people if not all, respect evidence based science and the power of observation before rendering a deduction. I also mentioned that I prefer to discuss views based on my personal experience. I have spent many years in Africa, was born there and speak an African language. I have also lived in the UK and travelled extensively in Brazil, USA, Hungary and Spain. I cannot speak with any personal experience for example about Asia, Middle East, Russia etc. and avoid any particular references to those lands. My point is that people can evolve to a better way of life more suited to the environment they have arrived in, particularly if they have no other option. They can for example choose smaller families and live comfortably within the bounds of their resources irrespective of their socio economic situation and education. I have come across virtually illiterate Africans who have worked out the advantages of smaller families without much outside help. They are unfortunately a small minority. To constantly have the US and the EU treat Africans as if they were poor helpless children queued up for alms, to suggest that they are so ignorant as not even know that sex causes babies is grossly insulting and highly provocative. It is a brash display of their own ignorance only surpassed by their arrogance. Groups of people tend to act in the way they are treated by the more powerful. There are two types of death I have no sympathy for; the one is the death of the hunter by his prey and the other is the termination of the foreign AID worker by his victim. From the days of David Livingstone missionaries have sallied forth from the West armed with bibles and the conviction that they are the superior arbiters of the high moral ground and dispensed religion and largesse and encouraged the colonial governments to follow with railways soldiers and traders to back up their efforts to civilize these poor lost souls. Nothing has changed in Africa. The missionaries have been replaced by AID workers and Peace Corp and the armies replaced by hand outs to create a greater state of dependency than that that existed during the colonial era. The US and the EU actively entice millions of Africans to enter their countries as some sort of sop to their conscience. These people are often the best educated and in doing so we put further limitations on Africas ability to evolve. My point is that if Africa can ever move out of its overpopulated misery it will be by a process of Darwinian evolvement and not by the interference of the arm-chair philosophers of the West who are quite simply preventing that evolvement. We can no longer view the world in isolation; overpopulation in any other country will have an immediate negative affect on the entire world. In ending this bit I would like to point out that in Kenya in the 60s President Jomo Kenyatta had a very successful birth-control campaign that had a rapid uptake even amongst some of the least educated. The slum misery and ethnic violence in Kenya today is a direct result of President Arap Moi in cahoots with a foreign power in the Vatican overturning and utterly destroying the good work begun. Every single subsequent foreign AID effort involving families, until very recently, was concentrated on infant and child mortality and deliberately avoided contraception.
The other part of my argument was to discuss that here in the UK where I live and in Africa where I used to live (N.B. Not Asia) producing scores of kids does not necessarily guarantee security and happiness in your later life.
This in turn leads to the closing part of your blog; what are we doing? Well Ken our leaders are doing an awful lot of jet-setting and talking about the only skills that are within their limited capabilities. Overall they are as committed as ever to an ever expanding GNP that requires an expanding population. They are still convinced that we need a growing population to rovide for retirees. In the USA and EU most of the indigenous population and immigrant families of more than a generation or two slowed their breeding down years ago to close to zero growth (Apart from the Kennedys and the Duggars not Duggans. To honour their above commitment immigration has to continue and Green is just another vote catching money making term. We like the Africans will have to hit rock bottom and its attendant misery before we also elect to evolve.
educationalist [ˌɛdjʊˈkeɪʃənəlɪst], educationist n (Business / Professions) a specialist in educational theory or administration
OK, so your term armchair philosophers are the oliticians, celebs, journalists, religionists, over-paid heads of charities and others who snatch a fact or two out of the air that suits their philosophy rejecting or modifying the rest? Ok, Ill buy a bit of that and that helps since all of us here are truly armchair philosophers including yourself and to be more accurate those that you mention are not armchair philosophers but idealogues who have an agenda, not in the interest of humanity in general, to promote. What you mistake for philosophizing is, to be direct, rationalizing with an intent to produce a result that favors their ideology. I agree with the whole missionary mentality thing. Its true basis is in garnering slaves and markets for the large industrial corporations that want their natural resources or, failing that, to utilize their lands to take advantage of the lax environmental and pollution laws that exist in those countries for their factories, ie, Oil refineries, chemical manufacturing, Palm oil production and the like . This has been true since before the days of Livingstone. The missionaries have always had the backing, not only of their churches, but of several large industries that have followed on their heals. Because of the missionary mentality there was instilled in indigenous aboriginal societies the ideology of catholicisms anti-birth control, anti-abortion and the myroid of other antis associated with religion in general but with Christianity in particular. It was/is in the best interests of large corporations and churches to continue to breed (pun intended) the idea that people must procreate in large numbers. This helps increase church attendance, the numbers of cheap labor, and the best of all more and more consumers, though its obviously not good for mother earth nor humanity as a whole. I submit that having multiples of children has never brought happiness later in life, unless your family happens to have been in many of the Asian countries that culturaly revere the elderly and find joy in taking care of them. In all other countries may children equates to many miseries unless its a farm family that has as many children as they can due to their cheap labor. The only other people that find joy in huge numbers are idiots like the Duggars and OctoMom who revel in the attention they get for it as well as the government aid that has to come with it. I think you mean the term educationalist in its basest connotation. That associated with a specialist in educational theory or administration as it applies to the propaganda of advertising, using educational theory as a strategy both in promoting products for industry as well as promoting the ideaology of the ruling classes in order to profit from thos of us that comprise the underclasses viewed by them as chattel, consumers, labor. Does that accurately describe your personal view of the term?
Ill have to disagree just a bit with your last paragraph in that our leaders are very astute, very competent at misdirection, deceit and making money both for themselves and their true constituants: Big Business, or more accurately; the Military Industrial Complex. They are convinced we need a growing population but not for taking care of retires, for expanding the consumer base. Our Retirees (myself included) are taking care of ourselves due to having paid in to social security for (in my case 45 years) 40-50 years. True, we might have made a better investment with our 15-50 dollar a week contribution to SS but most of us couldnt afford to make much more of an investment than that and it was, by law, required of us to put that in each week. No, it was never about caring for the elderly as if it had been we would be up with Europe and the UK with free health care all round. Its always been about profits, and there are only two ways to increase profits one of which is to increase the numbers of people that are buying product and the other is to decrease labor costs. More people, more buyers, too many job applicants mean employers can lower wages and reduce benefits....win win for industry and by affiliation Politicians, lose lose for the masses. By the by, thanks for your explainations. PS its KenO not Keno.
The Duggars are members of the Quiverfuls August 27, 2010 9:02 PM
Here is a short exerpt from RH Reality about the Quiverful movement.
"Helpmeet" is such an odd-sounding word to modern ears. But it resonates well in the lingo of the King James Bible. Girls born to Quiverfull families begin their training for the lifes calling as a Helpmeet [aka wife and homemaker] almost at birth.
"Girls are born for one and only one reason: to serve a husband. In that capacity, as his helpmeet, she will bear and raise his children, feed as many children as God sends on whatever income he earns, may raise a garden and animals or run a home-based business [with his approval], may home birth and will certainly homeschool all of her children.
Kind of reminds me of the middle eastern countries and Africa. Scary especially since the Quiverfull movement is raising enough children to take over the Government! This is their plan.
That "philosophy" borders on slavery. It infuriates me, but makes me glad I didn't marry somebody with two first names, LOL!
I was bored last night & surfing the TV schedule. I noticed that TLC (The Learning Channel) still has a "reality" show featuring the Duggars. I rarely watch any of the so-called "reality" shows, with the exception of "Whale Wars" and some of the others on Animal Planet. I would love it if enough people contacted that network to inform them of the idiocy of putting the Duggars in the public eye in such a way as to make them appear "normal" and to be doing the "right thing" by spitting out children like laboratory rats? Maybe we can get a petition up and send it to them?
I agree. When I lived in USA at 2005-2009, I also noticed that TLC had too much shows about multi-kids families. One of them "Little people big world". It's about everyday life of a dwarf couple who produced 4 (four!) kids, passing their dwarf genes on them. Another irresponsible child-breeders.
I've seen that show in the program guide and saw "previews" of upcoming episodes. Made me WONDER as well. Not saying dwarf couples shouldn't have children at all, nor that there is something "wrong" with them, either, but they should realize how many issues they've had to face and want to prevent their own offspring from having to go thru that. Don't those of us who want to truly be good parents want MORE for our children than we had (better lives)?
Another one that gets my blood boiling is "Jon & Kate PLUS 8". Both of them should be sterilized. They have split up, but their show is still being aired and it implies that both are good parents and contributing members of society. Hmmm, both are dating others and were openly having affairs when married to each other.
Well, I'm not against radical action or ecoterrorism in principle, quite the opposite, but must target the guilty parties and make sense when you do get media attention, not sound like you just went postal. Now if he would have targeted the Duggars, Octomom, Kate (plus eight) or some politician somewhere who drafted a law giving (more) benefits for those who have (especially more than two) children, by all means and more power to you, but Discovery... He seems to have gotten on the (quite wrong) "television must educate people" bandwagon... And overall likely did more harm than good to the cause.
Could we count him as an early victim (martyr?) in the population wars though?
I heard he lived within a short distance from this building and i think the reason he picked it was because he wanted or thought that TV would educate people on the planet as well. he believed that this Discovery group would change their programs. I do think he picked the wrong place.
Very sad! I think that he was right to be concerned about the state of the planet and factors that contribute to that, like large population sizes. But it's very sad that his protest happened this way.
I agree that his cause was based on "good intentions" and we all agree with what he "stood for". However, he did go too far. I don't think any of us condone storming a building armed with a gun and having "cannisters" strapped to our bodies and holding people hostage. He wrote in his Facebook page, that Discovery Channel, by NOT focusing more on environmental issues, "encourages the birth of anymore parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions".
I agree that Discovery is mis-guided when promoting the likes of Sarah Palin to narrate a show about Alaska, and they are part of the same network as TLC which has reality shows featuring The Duggar Family, but it only makes him look like a nutcase when addressing the issues like this, and unfortunately, he's now paid with his life. I wouldn't have condoned him holding The Duggars or Octomom as hostage with a gun, either. It's sort of like when PeTA, although they CLAIM to be working for "animal rights", cause the death of the very animals they are trying to save by blowing up research labs.
I have no problem with non-violent protests, or even having the "violence" escalate to destroying whatever property is used in killing innocent people and/or animals. For instance, The Sea Shepherds throw cannisters of a stinky acid (non harmful) onto the decks of the Japanese whaling vessels, and threw bottles of red paint on the hulls to cover up the word "Research", but they never tried to sink the ship or harm the crew. Hope that makes sense?
Yes we need many, many more Capt. Paul Watson's He is a real hero and champion for the wildlife of the sea's. He has it just right. What an amazing person he is. He also earned his own TV show ironically by doing it right.
"I don't think any of us condone storming a building armed with a gun and having "cannisters" strapped to our bodies and holding people hostage. [...] I wouldn't have condoned him holding The Duggars or Octomom as hostage with a gun, either."
Er, speak for yourself...
"It's sort of like when PeTA, although they CLAIM to be working for "animal rights", cause the death of the very animals they are trying to save by blowing up research labs."
Hm, PETA does that? Now I have a whole lot of issues with them (anyone notice how many animals are euthanized in PETA shelters?) but thought ALF were the more, er, active ones in that regard. And that even they blew stuff up after making sure every living being (humans too) inside was safely out.
As for Sea Shepherd, yeah, they do a decent job but I'm still quite annoyed by the amount of restraint they show, which includes the fact that they stopped sinking ships (they used to do it, and in fact the first mission way back then was to ram and sink a poaching vessel). And now they'll no longer use rotten butter either in their next anti-whaling mission, according to a statement...
Ugh, the blockquote tag looks right when you put it in basic editor and then switch back to rich text, but not when you post. Back to just using quotes I guess...
James Lee is my hero. Gave his life for a worth cause, applause, kudo's, strength of conviction....maybe he could have done better but he did get more than arrested and thrown into jail for two weeks with little no coverage. I can guarantee that a whole bunch of people have read his "Demands", which I personally find pretty damned astute. By the way the Discovery channel is not as benign and organization as it seems if you can dig through the many corporations and sub corporations that it owns and is owned by. The Sea Shepherd should have torpedoes aboard, or at the least deck guns, with those they might be more able to stop the predetory and illegal Japanese Whaling vessels. I say give me a .308 caliber sniper rifle and put me on the bluff overlooking the bloody cove in Japan where they filmed "The Cove". In one day the Japanese fishermen would be more wary about murdering Dolphins than any documentary would accomplish. It might cost me my life but, what the hell, I'm 64 years old and would rather go out defending the Dolphins than dying in a nursing home. Not really, but I have to say I'm pretty incensed about how creatures are treated in general with no end it seems regardless of the many organizations trying to defend them. I'm certainly, unequivically with Robert on this one.
Hey, Ken, I just watched The Cove and can't say I don't echo your sentiments. Paul Watson also says that everyone of his crew is willing to give up his/her life to save a whale, but he also advocates not attacking other ships to the extent they will sink, and says he's against harming (physically) their crew. I think he feels that the fact he doesn't will get his point across MORE. It puts the Japanese in a bad light if they're the ones being the ONLY ones causing harm to the opposition, when they ram ships, throw metal bolts, use the LRAD, etc.
Robert, the point is that if the Oxymom or The Duggars were attacked physically, they'd become martyrs, and that's exactly what we DON'T want. We want them to come across as the evil ones, which they are. Yes, PeTA has destroyed buildings, and killed the very animals they claim they were trying to protect. They set an entire population of farm-raised mink loose, all of which died within hours or at the most, days from dogs, coyotes, and/or starvation. They burned to the ground a research lab at the University of Washington and many laboratory animals died in the fire. The woman caught and convicted, confessed to doing it, but denied she belonged to PeTA, but facts proved otherwise.
When those things happen, it makes the people responsible out to be the bad guys, not the other way around. PeTA didn't accomplish their goal when setting loose all those mink, instead they got a lot of very negative publicity. Same with the other incident, even though PeTA denies having anything to do with it.
I'm not saying that the only approach is just everyone becoming "tree huggers", either. Just not agreeing with waging war and killing the "enemy" to be the answer. They have to be discredited and their followers and supporters eliminated (by that I mean by showing them the falsehood of their beliefs).
Well Diana, that's not going to work. As I keep saying, the more you challenge a person's core beliefs, they more convinced they'll be that they're right and you're wrong. So the only thing you can do without "waging war" is 1) educate children who are not yet brainwashed by society into this cycle and 2) somehow convince adults who are as yet undecided (not particularly many) that you're right. However, for both 1) and 2) you sort of need to already be in power. For 1), you may also go against those kids' parents, which will result in all sorts of trouble. And 2) requires a marketing and propaganda machine, which "they" have and we don't. In time we could have it, but right now our position is far more suitable for guerrilla warfare (both figuratively and literally) than mass marketing. And either way those methods won't work with adults who have already made up their minds on the matter (as in most of them) or even children who have already been brainwashed regarding this.
And killing Octomom or the Duggars wouldn't help, true, but picking them up and sterilizing them would be step one. Then we'll see how "creative" we could get.
As for that PETA issue (why the small "ethical"?), hadn't heard of it but there's also a difference between what an organization does and what its members do. I'm sure somebody could, say, sign up in the Republican party in the US and then host gay parties and organize protests against oil companies and financial institutions before they'll kick them out... There's also the question of the state of those animals, as in would they have been better off dead at that point?
Diane you make a good point that if Lee had held the duggars hostage they would have become the martyrs.
When I first heard about this all I could think of was "yes!" someone is protesting Palins ridculous show they are airing on there this fall.
In vanity fair it says she never once shot a moose or any other animal that the pictures were staged. Geez who can you believe anymore. I need to find out more about that one.
So are there anyone voting in the US this fall? If so( and i hope so) we need to keep the Dems in office. The Republican Tea bag party is going to furthur pave and drill this earth and its animals to total extinction not only that they do not believe in birth control of any kind!!!!! ban birth control? I will start a war. get out and vote this fall US citizens.
Robert, I have to agree with you to a point (about education probably not going to go anywhere with those whose minds are already made up), and yes, those "in power" exert a much greater influence. However, that's where it ends. We can't legislate beliefs, nor dictate morals (we've discussed that before and never agreed). I agree that sterilizing Michelle Duggar and Octomom would help a bit, but they're just two women, and while the two of them have now contributed to starting their own municipalities, and could form a baseball league, doing that by force would make them "victims" of our "judgemental policies". It has to happen because they want it to, because they finally realize that it's in their best interests and/or public opinion is so much against them. In Octomom's case, when her financial resources have been taken away from her, and maybe her children because she's been proven to be unfit, she'll have no choice. If she had to support her kids on her own, then she might not want any more. In Michelle Duggar's case, nature should take care of that pretty soon, but then all of her offspring need to be educated. With 20 or 21 of 'em, if they all think like their parents, I shudder to think!
If (referring to Ken's statement about torpedoeing the whaling ships and having a sniper take care of Tajii Cove), we resorted to violence like that, then those we are targeting as the enemy will simply be victims and we'll look like the bad guys. Don't get me wrong, should the Nishan Maru suddenly vanish in the Bermuda Triangle and Tajii was buried in volcanic ash, I would applaud, but unless it's a natural disaster or the world can convince them that their evil ways are economically unfeasible, it's not going to work.
I'm going to bed now so you guys will have the next 12 hours or so to save the world without me.
And I'll keep saying that being nice just ensures that you'll lose. Such people (and most adults for that matter) will not realize that they're wrong and will not change any more than we will. Simple as that.
And of course they're just two women, but that can be expanded. Was thinking earlier if we're on the "overpopulation ecoterrorism" issue, what would happen if there'd be a movement that'd kidnap people who have more than one child (with the bag over head, thrown in van like a bag of potatoes scenario), sterilize them (in some underground clinic, clean and safe, with a team of sympathetic professionals do actually perform the operations), then take them back home.
Now that'd be a monumental undertaking, requiring quite a lot of resources due to the medical part involved, but that might be effective ecoterrorism.
A much lighter (also much less effective) method could be trying to shame them somehow... Getting pictures and addresses of such people and putting up posters with their photos and names and information (with shocking pictures attached for emotional response) of environmental disasters and humanitarian crisis and announcing they're to blame for those things. Or, on an even lesser level, simply announcing they're too stupid to understand birth control (attaching some brief instructions on how to put on a condom or such) or grasp the consequences of their actions. And likely plaster some posters ("here lives the <whatever the other posters call the person>") around their home.
I can think of quite a few law enforcement agencies that'll become quite interested in this group right about now...
"According to a recent report in Newsweek,
over the last year and a half, the oil and gas industry has spent a
staggering $514 million on direct lobbying, disinformation campaigns,
sleazy advertising, and other pressure tactics, all designed with one
goal in mind to paralyze climate action."
So $515 million dollars in 18 months to paralyze climate action eh? Then BP spends $50 million on ads to placate furious Americans. It turns out Anderson Cooper reported the $50 million figure on his June 3 AC-360
show (CNN, 10 PM EDT.) He also reported that BP had hired "scores" of
former White House staffers and Congress members to lobby for BP, and
that the company had taken out full-page newspaper ads, which can run
into tens of thousands of dollars for just one ad, to promote its spin
on the Gulf disaster."
Just a bit of reality on how "we" stack up against the corporatists. Here's how slick they all are. Home Depot, when they were just beginning, hired a PR firm to help them. One of the things their PR firm did was to figure out what color scheme influenced people to buy, sort of a subliminal thing. They did research and came up with the colors now associated with Home Depot, "builders Orange", or what we could call "Buy me" Orange. When they want something they pull out all the stops to get it. When they want to alter opinion they do the same thing. If they decide to destroy you/us they will do the same thing.
Robert, they already know about us. During the Bush administration a law (I forget the number, they all have numbers) was passed that made animal activists legally "eco-terrorists", really. The law included such provisions as making protestors liable for monetary losses suffered by factory farms due to their rally's etc. Then of course there's the stigmata of being labeled a "terrorist" of any sort which gives the government carte` blanche to do whatever it wants with you, no judge, no jury, no access to council...pretty neat eh? Your government at work....lovely, just lovely.
I found this in my Newspaper on Sunday, the Parade section, checked on line and found it here: http://www.parade.com/health/2010/09/05-miracle-mom-stacy-wiparina.html This woman is the perfect example of how driven, self centered and selfish some people can be. She had no thought of her children carrying her debilitating genetics that they will likely pass on to their children and grandchildre. Perhaps she's so happy with her disease that she thought she'd like others to be afflicted as well. They call her a "Miracle Mom". "I knew I was going to be a mom" Wiparina says. "It's all I ever wanted". From the article - "Giving birth seemed as obvious and natural to her as learning to drive, getting a college degree, and having a career." How incredibly selfish of her. She considers the "downside" to be not being able to run around with her kids, not that her children will likely produce children with Type II SMA. She never even considered that, she was only concerned with what she wanted. I feel the same towards the Dwarf family. Dwarves should consider tubal ligations and vasectomy's as a deterrant to producing yet more dwarves. Why don't they just adopt? You would think that a person afflicted with dwarfism, or any other serious deformation would not desire that future generations be afflicted as well.
OMG, Ken, I so agree with you about this woman. I can understand an "overwhelming" desire to be a Mom, but since her condition is genetic, then she should consider that her kids could be born just like her, and then what? Does she expect her husband to care for both her and her offspring? Yes, selfish! She says her biggest fear is not living long enough to see them grow up. Well, DUH! So somebody else (more likely the State) will take that little job over, since her husband will still have to work, so that means hiring someone else or whatever.
I do disagree with you about dwarfism, however. It's not always inherited, and from what I've seen, dwarfs don't consider themselves to be "deformed", and they get around pretty danged well. Yes, they need to learn to "adapt" to a world of "stuff" designed for bigger people, but other than being short, I wouldn't consider them "deformed". Where do you draw the line? I have a friend who is 4'11" and some things are difficult for her. My S.I.L. is 6'5" and my grandson is 6'7" so they have it just the opposite. If being a "dwarf" meant other health issues, I'd be the first to agree with you, and maybe I have it backwards. There is another "small" condition (midgets?) who have larger heads in proportion to their bodies, and indeed do suffer from many health issues, including a much shorter lifespan. What about the tribes where that is the "norm"? Would you suggest we wipe them off the face of the earth just because they're different from us? I think if just being short(er) is all that is involved, it's not that much different than having flaming red hair & freckles. They have health issues as well........such as not being able to withstand as much sun as someone with more "normal" pigment. Would you suggest they not procreate because of the color of their hair & skin?
Diane, Im sorry to say this but you simply make no logical argument. Im thinking that you have made no effort to research the subject of Dwarfism. To make a correlation between Dwarfism and Pygmies (I assume thats what your your referring to when you say tribes where that is the norm, a race of humans not born with genetically associated disorders) is to suggest no knowledge of either biology or anthropology. By the way midgets is not a medical term, and is, by all accounts, interchangeable with the term Dwarf, although both terms are considered distastful by persons afflicted with Dwarfism. From Wikipedia: The term Midget", whose etymology indicates a "small sandfly," came into prominence in the mid-1800s after Harriet Beecher Stowe used it in her novels Sunny Memories of Foreign Lands and Old Town Folks where she described children and an extremely short man, respectively. To be clear, midget is not a medical term. Here is a link to Dwarfism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarfism (there are others but Wiki gives the easest to read) do us a favor, go there, read it and get back to us. The article is so lengthy so Id rather not post it in its entirety which is what I would have to do to dispell your rather adolescent arguments. Your premise, which appears to jump to the conclusion, that I would wish Redheads, people with freckles, Blondes, and pygmies to be kept from procreating, as well as both people under 5 tall and your sons (Over 65 lacks any foundation in fact. It is a giant leap from my argument as well as being simply emotionally based and ignorant of the facts. Until you educate yourself its pointless to argue further as any argument you might come up with would have no basis in the reality of genetically transmitted medical conditions. That you could make the statement that dwarfism doesnt include other health issues is indicative of your complete lack of knowledge on the condition. There is the slightest of possibilities that someone might come down with Dwarfism from other maladys but the possiblity is so slight and the evidence for genetic predisposition is so strong that anyone with the condition must know that they are carrying the gene and that their children or their childrens children are likely to be Dwarves as well. There are many conditions that are spread genetically and I would submit that all of them are grounds for voluntary sterilization for the benefit of both the human race as well as the individual families. Why someone who has a genetically transmitted condition (and no, Im not talking about Blonde hair and blue eyes) would even consider having children is beyond my comprehension, greedy, selfish, insensitive, uncaring and yes, morbid and sadistic. No shame in adopting, why not?
Ken, I pretty much figured you'd disagree with me about dwarfism, since you had already said you put them in the same category as this woman in the newspaper/magazine article, but wanted to comment anyway, since I disagree with you, and still do to an extent. I'm not wanting to argue, either, and if you wish, I won't post about this further..........
I did read the information in the link you provided. As I said before, I wasn't sure about the differences between "dwarfs" and "midgets" and could have them "backwards", but at one time, I do believe I've seen them referred to as being different......apparently not (from the Wikipedia explanation, anyway). So, going by your own suggestion, I read the entire thing and it stated that dwarfism isn't always associated with health issues at all, and also is not necessarily inherited. People of normal height can have children with dwarfism, and vice versa. The article said pretty much what I was already under the impression of, that the worst thing is that those with this condition are at a disadvantage when dealing with "stuff" that is meant for those of us with more "normal" height, so yes, they have to make a ton of "adjustments". I mentioned my friend who is 4'11" and my S.I.L. and grandson (6'5" and 6'7") as examples of people who are not dwarfs but also are "vertically challenged" in that they also have a tough time of it (BTW, my daughter is 5'1" and her other son is an even 6').
I don't think that someone who is otherwise healthy, just "vertically challenged" and can take care of themselves to be in the same category as the woman in the magazine article, who cannot even take care of herself, never has and never will. When she can't do even the basic things, yes, as you said, she is selfish beyond words to want to bring a child into this world who can be just as dependent as she is (the condition/disease is genetic) and therefore others will have to take care of BOTH of them, or even if "normal", she still can't care for them. There is more to being a parent than reading bedtime stories! So she has managed to get a college degree and can drive a car! At what expense? Don't tell me that vehicle that she drives (with a joystick) costs the same as my Honda Accord, and I honestly can't understand how she can be a safe driver if she has no use of her limbs! Thank God I don't have to encounter her on a road where she might have to make a split-decision in an emergency and I'm right in front of her or next to her! What IF her child gets sick and she has to take him/her to the hospital and hubby's not home? She can't even put the kid in her car by herself, can she? Who changes the diapers? There are situations when those who have issues later on in life have to make serious adjustments to deal with them, but this woman pretty much knows she's not going to ever be better off than she is now, probably worse.
I'm thankful that both my children were born healthy and "normal" (at least physically), but there's always that chance. Just saying that when you pretty much KNOW before even getting pregnant that your child WILL BE born with the same condition, yes, selfish beyond words. It's not just that they'll have the same issues, but that they will be drains on society and cause problems to others besides themselves. I have a very dear friend who is Type I diabetic. He's had it since he was 5 years old and takes insulin daily to survive. It's not genetic......he became diabetic after getting chicken pox and it manifested itself internally vs. externally. He is only 36 years old, and told me once that he'd love to be a father, LOVES kids, but will never have them because he is afraid that he won't live long enough to raise them and his condition will eventually be a burden. He's had vision problems and diabetic myalopathy starting up already. So, he's just an "uncle" to other peoples children.
A Plea For Sustainability October 10, 2010 9:08 AM
An international group of volunteers on
overpopulation awareness and the advocacy of a worldwide, ethical and
democratic (applicable to each and all) system of birth control - i am
part of - is reaching out to the United Nations, through a petition:
I came across this interesting development on the same issue:
'PAPAL VISIT: GREEN NGO ATTACKS "INHUMANE" CONTRACEPTION BAN'
"The Optimum Population Trust today
urged British Catholics and non-Catholics alike to protest strongly to
the Pope about the ban on contraception.
Chairman Roger Martin said: "The Catholic Church does much good in the
world, but the effects are nullified by its uniquely inhumane doctrine
on, and campaign against, contraception."
The number of mostly poor women dying
of pregnancy-related causes equates to one every minute, four jumbo jets
full of pregnant women crashing every day. Some 40% of these
pregnancies are unintended; and scores of thousands of these deaths each
year result from unsafe abortions by desperate women denied access to
family planning; while condoms remain the most effective form of
AIDS-prevention, yet in short supply.
"Empowering women to take control of
their own fertility should be a basic human right, which the Catholic
Church constantly tries to deny them," said Mr Martin. "It is not just
the women's own health which is affected, but that of their children.
Every mother subsisting on a dollar or two each day knows that her
children would be better fed if the available food is divided among,
say, four children than ten."
"Furthermore, almost all the poorest
countries now acknowledge that rapid population growth inhibits their
development and degrades their environment", he went on. "As UNICEF said
as far back as 1992, "Family Planning could bring more benefits to more
people at less cost than any other technology." Yet the Church
campaigns against it".
The All-Party Parliamentary Group on
Population, Development and Reproductive Health 2007 report 'Return of
the Population Growth Factor' demonstrated the link between rapid
population growth and failure to meet the Millennium Development Goals.
"Population growth in all countries,
along with excessive consumption by the rich, are the two main drivers
of all our looming environmental crises - food, water and energy
security, climate change, and peak oil," continued Mr Martin. "As our
Patron David Attenborough says, all these would be easier to solve with
fewer people, and ultimately impossible with ever more."
"In any case, we all know our finite
planet cannot sustain an infinite number of people; so population growth
will definitely stop at some point - either sooner the humane way by
fewer births through contraception, reproductive health and women's
empowerment, or later the natural way by more deaths through famine,
disease and predation/war. There is no third alternative of indefinite
growth. By campaigning against the former, the Pope is in fact
campaigning for the latter."
"He should be brave enough to do the
decent thing, change the doctrine, and so do immense good to the world,
at no cost, in one minute - as his predecessors were urged to do by the
overwhelming majority of the 1964 Papal Commission. His refusal to do so
does immense harm to women, the poor, the planet, and future
NOTES FOR EDITORS: OPT
is an environmental charity, think-tank and campaign group, aiming to
increase awareness of the environmental impact of population growth
through campaigning, education and research. It was founded in 1991 by
the late David Willey.
Its patrons are: Sir David
Attenborough, naturalist and wildlife film-maker; Sir Partha Dasgupta,
Frank Ramsey, professor of economics, Cambridge University; Paul
Ehrlich, professor of population studies, Stanford University; Jane
Goodall, founder, the Jane Goodall Institute, UN Messenger of Peace;John
Guillebaud, emeritus professor of family planning and reproductive
health, University College, London; Susan Hampshire, actor; Dr. James
Lovelock, originator of the Gaia theory; Aubrey Manning, broadcaster and
professor of natural history, Edinburgh University; Professor Norman
Myers, visiting fellow, Green College, Oxford; Sara Parkin, founder
director and trustee, Forum for the Future; Jonathon Porritt, former
chair, the UK Sustainable Development Commission; and Sir Crispin
Tickell, director of the Policy Foresight Programme, James Martin
Institute for Science and Civilisation, Oxford University."