|
Post by Woody Williams on May 8, 2007 7:58:21 GMT -5
What One Activist Says Is the Only Way to Save the Earth
Now some fresh pickings from the Political Grapevine:
Mankind a "Virus"
Animal rights activists and environmentalists are in full cry today — with a call for a chimpanzee to be declared a person — a claim that children are bad for the planet — and a call for the current world population of around 6.5 billion to be cut to less than one billion.
The man behind that last idea is Paul Watson, the founder and president of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. He says humans are a disease — "the AIDS of the earth." Watson is calling for a return to "primitive lifestyles" with no cars, planes or motorized water transportation.
He says this is necessary because mankind is "acting like a virus" and killing the planet. He doesn't specify how we should get rid of the excess 5.5 billion folks. But he does say only people who are "responsible and completely dedicated" to his population eradication beliefs should be allowed to have children.
Reduce Family Size
Meanwhile the British-based Optimum Population Trust says that reducing family size is the greatest thing anyone can do to help the future of the planet. The group says that just one less child means a reduction in nearly 750 tons of carbon dioxide — the equivalent of 620 flights between New York and London each year.
It is calling on families to have just two children instead of three.
Legally a Person?
An animal rights group in Austria wants a judge to declare that a 26-year-old chimpanzee is legally a person. The animal sanctuary where Hiasl the chimpanzee has lived most of his life has gone bankrupt. Activists want to take in donations to provide a home for him — but Austrian law says only a person can receive personal donations.
The president of the local Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals says the idea is absurd, and could lead to animals gaining broader rights, such as copyright protections on their photographs.
|
|
|
Post by tmarsh83 on May 8, 2007 8:17:38 GMT -5
To be completely non-PC...
We need to "fix" about two thirds of the populaton as it is. Seems people who can't get a job decide they have nothing better to do than sit around and make babies. Then jab us for the bill. I'm all for hormone injections at birth that render people barren, until another hormone is given when we deem them not worthless enough to have kids. Drastic, yes...vile and disgusting, perhaps to some...but if you take a good look around, the armpit of society is getting bigger all the time, and costing us more and more money, in this country and around the world.
Modern medicine saves too many people...government regulations save too many people...uncontrolled screwing by the lower class around the world causes too many people...
If we can find a way to off half the population real quick...as vile as it may sound...i wouldn't shed too many tears over the ones i don't know...
|
|
|
Post by JohnSmiles on May 8, 2007 8:33:09 GMT -5
You said it yourself, and I have to agree; that is indeed vile. Willingly killing off billions of innocent people with no signs of concern is very disturbing. We ARE acting like a virus, and we ARE basically destroying the planet. There are waaay too many of us here. At some point, we will be at war with China over oil, and a huge portion of the population will go up in smoke anyway, so that problem already has its solution written in stone. But until then, I see no solution. Smaller families is common sense, and has been pushed for years now. Legalized abortion proves the government supports it here in the USA. While I am for smaller families, I am not for abortion being the method of achieving this. Now, granting a chimp human status. . . . . . we did that once here. Even gave the little feller a legal name: George W. Bush ;D
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on May 8, 2007 8:33:48 GMT -5
I assume that Mr. Watson will off-himself asap to set a good example.
|
|
|
Post by tmarsh83 on May 8, 2007 8:44:11 GMT -5
Mr Watson is a typical leftist elistist XXXXX. He will tell everyone else how they are screwing up, tell them how to fix it, and even if the same goes for him, he will do nothing of the sort.
See Al Gore...
|
|
|
Post by tmarsh83 on May 8, 2007 8:45:15 GMT -5
and john...how many of them are truly innocent anyway...haha...
how many criminals are locked up around the world...or should be...can we start with them?
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on May 8, 2007 8:59:40 GMT -5
Maybe there are some activists who are willing to sacrifice for the good of the planet............
|
|
|
Post by JohnSmiles on May 8, 2007 10:51:04 GMT -5
and john...how many of them are truly innocent anyway...haha... how many criminals are locked up around the world...or should be...can we start with them? Trent, if you think there is any way you will be able to garner my support for the killing off of half the population, you are whizzing up a rope. I am all for capitol punishment, and the death penalty, but not for wanton killing of others simply to improve my standard of living. Some of your views are disturbing to a great degree, and in a previous post where you claimed to want to 'just kill people', you are either screaming for attention, or you need to be checked out. I am starting to wonder if it would be prudent to take your comments as 100% dead serious here.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on May 8, 2007 11:20:06 GMT -5
It's a shame that some nutcases get press for extreme statements in support of what is really the correct position on an issue. It makes it more difficult for those who are trying to advance that position without the craziness.
I completely disagree with the silliness about going back to living like primitives. We can be as modern as the day after tomorrow without being wasteful about it, and can probably live "greener" than we could in a mud hut, eating roots and berries. The real lesson we need to learn is that there does need to be fewer people crawling around on the planet to make it last.
I read "The Population Bomb" by Dr. Paul Ehrlich, back in the mid sixties, and decided he was right in that the earth was well on its way to being ruined and depleted by overcrowding. Still think so.
That's why our son never had any siblings. We decided to stop with one. It was a tough personal decision between that and having one more, but after taking a good long look at the situation, there was never a question of more than two.
I think anyone who takes a serious look at it, has to come away with the conclusion that we already have too many people for the world's resources to go on supporting forever. The solution is as simple as stated by the British Group quoted above. Have two kids if you want, and you're still part of the solution. Have the third, and you're part of the problem.
As simple as that is, and despite all the evidence that it would be better for the health of the mothers, and despite the obvious financial benefits to limiting the number of kids to one or two, it's still a hard sell to get young people to make the right choice.
We start our families when we're pretty young, and we haven't had the time or inclination to think seriously about saving the earth. We may have taken part in a trash pickup or learned not to pitch our McDonalds sacks out along the roadways, but controlling the world's population growth? Way too heavy to even consider.
When we do get around to thinking about it, our three or four kids are in school and we're not planning any more. Then it's our grandkids that you're talking about limiting the numbers of, and we really want to play with our grandkids. They're usually even more fun than the first batch. Hard to tell the son or daughter that you think they should really consider not having that third one, in order to save the planet.
We have a few folks in the family who got on the "save the whales" type bandwagon in college and came out dedicated to living in a responsible manner and not polluting any more than they needed to. They used cloth diapers and timed thermostats and whatever new item the greenies were touting at the time. One of them had four kids, and would have had more if she'd been able. The other green couple, both engineers who crunch the numbers on everything, made the conscious decision to have their third. Wanted to try one more time for a girl.
Never mind the fact that the earth ain't gettin' any bigger, or that we're running out of fresh water, or that the chemicals we're dumping on the ground to grow enough food are poisoning those grandkids. What was important was that they could get their girl, or their boy in the other case, after three girls.
It's the most natural thing in the world, to want to procreate as successfully as you can. Goes directly to the most primal drive, that of survival of the species. Most people in the more developed countries have accepted the idea, despite all that, and the populations are stable or slightly declining in much of the civilized world, except for the immigration from the baby factories elsewhere.
I'm running on, and I could keep going on this subject all day. I'll shut up now, except to state one more fact to illustrate just how suddenly the situation has changed. I'm 62, and I remember reading in "The Weekly Reader" in grade school, that the population of the world had hit three billion people. It's now well over six billion. We DO need to do something to at least stop the increase in numbers.
|
|
|
Post by drs on May 8, 2007 13:19:39 GMT -5
It sounds like this Paul Watson follows the "Malthusian Economic Theory" set about by the English Economist Thomas Multhus. A theory I happen to agree with too.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on May 8, 2007 14:03:09 GMT -5
If everyone limits themselves to 2 or less kids we will be just fine.
One problem is the mulitple marriages we are now getting.
We end up with his, hers and ours...
|
|
|
Post by Hawkeye on May 8, 2007 16:54:31 GMT -5
How about the baby machines who have 6 0r 7 kids and have no idea where the multiple dads are,and live for the monthly free welfare check. I really think there should be a stop gap in place .You are on welfare have more kids, no additional free money!. But that would mean some one would have to get a job,Wow what a concept!
|
|
|
Post by RiverJim on May 8, 2007 20:24:19 GMT -5
GEEZ LAWEEZ This planet is right on course as GOD wants it. I could care less if you have 1 or 50 kids. This planet will be here right to the exact second that it's suppose to be. I know a whole bunch of fine upstanding citzens that for some period of time throughout their life they were what we would call scum of the earth. So I guess it's a good thing we don't go with the "kill the bad ones" thinking. I know a few that has done more good, and now only lives to do that good for their fellow man. Good thing we didn't kill them ?
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on May 8, 2007 21:16:11 GMT -5
I assume that Mr. Watson will off-himself asap to set a good example. My thoughts exactly
|
|
|
Post by JohnSmiles on May 8, 2007 21:27:34 GMT -5
GEEZ LAWEEZ This planet is right on course as GOD wants it. I could care less if you have 1 or 50 kids. This planet will be here right to the exact second that it's suppose to be. I know a whole bunch of fine upstanding citzens that for some period of time throughout their life they were what we would call scum of the earth. So I guess it's a good thing we don't go with the "kill the bad ones" thinking. I know a few that has done more good, and now only lives to do that good for their fellow man. Good thing we didn't kill them ? If you say so. For my 2 cents, I think we should have executed a great deal more than we have. I have known a lot of less than upstanding types who 'grew up' and became responsible. I have never known what I call scum of the earth to change in any manner. And I have known several I would label as such.
|
|
|
Post by tmarsh83 on May 8, 2007 22:38:09 GMT -5
John, thought you said I was vile...now you want to execute people?
|
|
|
Post by RiverJim on May 8, 2007 23:13:35 GMT -5
[quote author=johnsmiles I have never known what I call scum of the earth to change in any manner. And I have known several I would label as such.[/quote]
Try looking in a CHURCH!
|
|
|
Post by larryhagmansliver on May 9, 2007 12:20:35 GMT -5
Wow! This opened a can of worms now didn't it!! Where do you find these things Woody? Ok for my simple two cents. I see Caterpillars working on both sides of my housing addition. One side for a new Walgreens, and Kroger plaza and the other side for a three hundred house addition. Where are all the people coming from? I am 37 years old and have seen a lot of change. you can't help but wonder what 30, 50, 100 or 200 more years will bring.
Larry
|
|
|
Post by chicobrownbear on May 9, 2007 12:38:47 GMT -5
IMHO, Thomas Malthus was pretty much right, less the variables of technological advances in agriculture and medicine.
|
|
|
Post by drs on May 9, 2007 14:24:53 GMT -5
Thomas Malthus , in his writtings & Studies, said that mankind would soon over-populate and consume all or most of the natural resources. This would cause unrest umoung nations and result in Wars over things like Food, and other natural resources.
|
|