China's One-Child Policy Comes To Western Countries

[danze78]

Fact is, overpopulation is destroying the environment, with pollution, more waste, overfishing, , devastation of forest areas, explotation of natural resourses, extinction of wildlife and many other thing. this can be ficks with just one simple thing introducing one child policy.

se my article about the matter

wwwenvironmentinfocuscom

[elsquibbs]

Obama's Science Czar John Holdren wrote freely in 1977 about the benefits of forced sterilization, the distribution of sterilants in water/food supplies, and other goodies. This is what the White House has become. Coming soon to a theater near you.

[arlzi]

What about doing a head count, for the different cultures and work out who is producing a MEGA army....

[openmindedaussie]

Alex, the only place I can find this information about Australias population carbon credit thingy is from your website, I went to the medical journal and its simply not there... As I mentioned before we are still paying people a lot of money to produce more taxpayers... And the amount keeps rising every year....

[openmindedaussie]

This is untrue. Australia is the only country in the world still paying people to have babies. If you have a baby now in 2008 after June you get $5000, I know I have a four month old. They are not concerned with population control here. They need more taxpayers as they baby boomers are all getting older and dying. Then our generation said no to kids, more women are working,  shit we need more white people. Lets pay women to have kids..This is all fact.. Search baby bonus australia on google.

[pronatalist]

To AlternateArtisan (continued #3):

The U.S. should set a good example for a growing world of people, by growing ourselves and showing the world how it is best done.

What makes us think we are so "special" that we needn't possibly eventually, if ever, populate beyond the present day population density of India? If we are "all in this together," then why should it be "shameful" if some countries are far denser or richer in human population than us? Rather, countries DENSIFY to hold more people.

[pronatalist]

To AlternateArtisan (continued):

I have long suspected that 1-child policy wasn't even China's idea, but Western contraceptive imperilists leaning on China, to set "an example" of poor or easier-to-manipulate people. What if the world's most populous country, simply can't manage to get its burgeoning population more "under control?" What does that portend for the general trend of global population size? Well I already advocate a more densely populated world, so sure, have big families in China.

[pronatalist]

What if there was some move, to target every country that makes moves to "control" its population growth, for colonization for those who don't? Could that maybe restore some sanity? Either you people reproduce as God or nature intends, or we will come and do it for you, and you will have to deal with all the more foreigners?

See what more evidence do we need, to cut funding for government monopoly education, if this is the idiocy that such liberalism/socialism churns out?

And we are civilized?

[AlternateArtisan]

as nature intended we'd be food for leopards and mountainlions, but since we have no natural predators the only thing that can keep us in check is either disease or starvation. you want people to starve?

[pronatalist]

To AlternateArtisan:

No, I don't want people to starve, that wouldn't help us very well to naturally proliferate, now would it?

Look at the rather LONG list of compelling reasons why parents tend to have as many children as they do. As a pro-life activist, I agree with just about all the reasons people may want to cite.

I have no desire to go against what so many "breeder" parents seem to naturally want, and don't want for the human race to be held "in check," but to beautifully "blossom."

[AlternateArtisan]

While the idea is good, it's unrealistic, humans can't continue to grow in population without bad things happening, scarse resourse, wars, environmental destruction and disease will inevitably do the task of keeping populations down. You can expect the most heavily populated countries in the world to suffer tremedously as oil runs out and poor agricultural methods deplete the soils.

[pronatalist]

To AlternateArtisan:

Can you realistically stop, or want to stop a flower from blossoming? Human populations tend to creep up in population size, or grow larger dramatically. Either way, wouldn't it be prudent to plan for how to best welcome our NATURAL increase? Wasn't that the real reason for a lot of the 20th century vaccines and public health improvements? Towards helping babies survive, and more safely and comfortably swelling population sizes?

Malthusian gloom-and-doom is discredited.

[AlternateArtisan]

Perhaps the western world might not be so badly off in later years when resourses run dry, but take a look at places such as africa or parts of india, those places are suffering from extreme cases of strain because of their population. A first world healthcare system isn't cheap, and most countries won't be able to afford it, add that to a global economic collapse due to skyrocketing oil prices and you've got a disaster of biblical proportions.

[pronatalist]

To AlternateArtisan:

Most all jobs and inventions make money, by solving problems. The world, or at least parts of the world, is becoming a more densely populated place. There are many ways to better design countries, cities and such, to hold quite a lot more people. Urban sprawl would be a rather "obvious" example. But earth worshipers and various luddites whine against sprawl. Why? They want housing to be unaffordable to the poor? They want people too crowded?

Fairer economy can afford stuff

[AlternateArtisan]

Which is why a consumerist culture like america is going to have a backlash with a larger population. People are greedy and that will almost always be one factor that prevents the ideal 'perfect world' honestly I wish the technological singularity would come about sooner. Once death is taken out of the equation people would realise we don't need to spawn countless copies of ourselves for greed.

[pronatalist]

To AlternateArtisan:

Hypothetical conversation. America criticizes China for barbaric 1-child policy. So China asks, "You don't have over a billion people in your borders. We do. Would you still welcome people to refuse to control the size of their families, if you had over a billion people?" What's the correct answer? Yes, we would still welcome naturally and possibly large families. We would still value human life.

People supposedly ADAPT too well? Let it be our strength then. No death?BREED

[pronatalist]

To AlternateArtisan (continued #4):

Commie chairman Mao, claimed that a large and growing population would make China strong. If China still honors Mao, why is their population policy so inconsistant with what he said? Does more population make a nation strong? Maybe it makes them more needy? But either way, it's all the more people around to experience life. So Mao was right, for much the same reason that a lib-tard or a broken clock may be right, twice a day.

Babies not dying=have more kids!

[pronatalist]

To AlternateArtisan (continued):

I, as a pro-life activist, and consistant pronatalist, say there's no shame in parts of India growing rather dense human populations, or Africa swelling up naturally with seeming huge crowds of humans. It's not because they are supposedly over-breeding, but because people have been living there so long, land is divided sometimes possibly unfairly, and like a woman's womb, eventually it fills headed towards "birth" The Bible says Earth isn't our final home either

[onevoiceonehuman]

and what is the definition of 'insanity'?

[pronatalist]

To onevoiceonehuman:

And what is the definition of "insanity?" Somewhere I heard the claim, that "insanity" is asking the same question repeatedly, and expecting a different answer. And that's what the Radical Left sympathizers do to me? What can we do about "overpopulation?" ACCOMODATE human natural increase. Uh, that's not the answer we want. Ask again. Same answer.

An intelligent person would move on. How do we accomodate population? More homes, new power plants, more jobs, more pronatalism

[BlackKrishnaverse]

Yup, the plan should be clear to all with the lack of the Democrats opposition to the Bushtapo. Both sides are controlled and working towards a world government funded by global warming-taxing under the UN who say China is the model for the future. Immigration is part of the "problem + reaction = solution" strategy. See Alan Watt at CuttingThroughTheMatrix for the big picture and spread the word, we can stop this... :-)

:::: (((( RON PAUL REVOLUTION )))) ::::

[pronatalist]

To BlackKrishnaverse:

Global warming taxation? Do you even want to get me started on what a huge swindol "global warming," or its most recent deceptionary morph "Climate Change," is?

If there was some Star Trek "Federation of Planets" out there, they wouldn't even admit us, for claiming us to be "uncivilized." At least the Klingons have their "honor." We don't even make certain basic reasonable ADAPTATIONS to accomodate our growing numbers, we oppress the poor by "environmental" excuses, etc.

[Aiursrage2k]

Then big business will say we need more workers... import more immigrants