Breeding isn’t everything considering how 5 percent of the population uses 25 percent of the resources. I don’t think it’s an either/or equation– consumption and breeding are working hard together.

Danny,
Indians did not wake up one morning, swear allegiance to Euro/US hegemony and yell “burn it down” so that among other things, cattle could be cheaply raised for US fast food

Regarding the racism implicit in insisting on reductions in Third World populations, I think Robert Jensen expressed his nausea about this idea very well in his book Citizens of the Empire, as he recounts his conversation with a student who argued against providing life-saving medicines to Third World people as a way to ease the population “problem”:

“I contained my anger, somewhat, and told the student that when she was ready to sacrifice members of her own family to help solve the global population problem, then I would listen to her argument. In fact, given the outrageous levels of consumption of the middle and upper classes in the United States, I said, one could argue that large-scale death in the American suburbs would be far more beneficial in solving the population problem; a single U.S. family is more of a burden ecologically on the planet than a hundred Indian peasants. ‘If you would be willing to let an epidemic sweep through your hometown and kill large numbers of people without trying to stop it, for the good of the planet, then I’ll listen to that argument,’ I said.”

Sorry if you feel that I have placed words in your mouth. But if I did you should be overjoyed at least they would be legible.

You are right of course, point well taken, I must admit that I have had little experience with England. I have heard pol’s discussing the falling birth rate in France, Italy and Germany. And this with some alarm.
The only point I wish to make is that the Third world has to see that it is in their own best interest to lower the birth rate. the never ending flow of mana from the EU and North America may well , No, Probably will dry up some day leaving them in the lurch.
I might be inclined to give the third world my seat in the lifeboat, but you will play merry hell getting Miss. Jones to give her child’s seat up.

I don’t know about America, but here in England the ‘p’ word is never even discussed – sort of implying that’s it’s not a problem, and perfectly o.k. for Brits to have as many kids as they like.

My point is until population control is recognised by first world countries as an important factor in resolving environmental issues, and acted upon by those countries – even by just taking the relatively mild step of raising it as a social pressure – the third world cannot reasonably be expected to follow suit.

The fact that it is not so much of a problem in the first world is all to the good in making the idea easier to accept here. However, there will be stoic opposition. It flies in the face of powerful church influences, as well as being directly opposed to the teachings of More, The God of Plunder.

I do not believe that any one said that only third world populations should be controlled. However, the rate of population growth in the U.S. is at .09 percent and has remained stable for the last 20 years, the rate in Canada is slightly higher at 1.1 percent with approx. 20 % of this from immigration, Europe has an average of only .20 per cent and that would be negative without immigration from the former colonies.
Now compare that to Nigeria that has a population growth of 10 % with a population density of 400 people per kilometer. The population of 100 million should double in the next 40 years. They are on the verge of not being able to feed themselves now. by 2050 they will be living on handouts.
If we all continue, to grow there will be nothing for them and nature will reduce the population to a level sustainable for the area.
In addition, if the choice is between a Canadian or American housewife seeing her own children go hungry or seeing children go hungry in the third world. Well what would you expect to se happen?
.

Of course one child per woman would reduce the population much quicker – but it would be a big thing to introduce and I’m not sure if such a rapid change would not cause more problems than it solved. In addition, there are quite a lot of women who choose not to have children at all, or who are unable to do so, or who sadly lose their children before they’re old enough to have their own offspring.

Also I should say I’m not a big one for legislation, and personally would not support laws forcing women to have only one or two children – but I think it should be encouraged through social pressure.

As for reducing only third world populations – I’m totally opposed. It cannot be right to expect poor families to control their numbers (especially when personal survival depends on family support) whilst the rich continue to breed like rabbits. Better by far for the rich to set the example they would hope others might follow.

Rousseau’s noble savage never existed, just who in the hell do you think is clear cutting the rain forest? Canadian Boy scouts? You are right that child in the third world has nothing, except 16 brothers and sisterswho can’t be fed or clothed.

What’s scary is that more than 2 children is being ENCOURAGED in many places. Australia “needs” growth, so there are incentives as well as campaigns for more births.

It’s sort of hinted at once again here.

It seems to me that when we discuss ecological and environmental issues it’s more important to grasp this particular nettle than any other. If the planet’s human population were half its size, and if it were naturally decreasing instead of exploding, the significance of environmental changes would be far less serious, and some of those changes would not be happening at all.

I do not for one second propose some sort of eugenics or ‘master race’ programme; but what would be wrong with encouraging women, ALL women, to voluntarily chooose to have no more than two children?

Population control must surely be at the heart of resolving the planet’s ecological time bomb.

george, i invite you to check out the state of the art of truth movement today. i also invite you to remove your head from your rectum.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The world pumped up its pollution of the chief man-made global warming gas last year, setting a course that could push beyond leading scientists’ projected worst-case scenario, international researchers said Thursday.

The new numbers, called “scary” by some, were a surprise because scientists thought an economic downturn would slow energy use. Instead, carbon dioxide output jumped 3 percent from 2006 to 2007.

Then of course we will be up against this little problem.

Nouriel Roubini, the professor who predicted the financial crisis in 2006, said the U.S. will suffer its worst recession in 40 years, causing the rally in the stock market to “sputter.”
“There are significant downside risks still to the market and the economy,” Roubini, 50, a New York University professor of economics, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. “We’re going to be surprised by the severity of the recession and the severity of the financial losses.”

Then of course in the United States say Obama makes it his big plan is 60 billion over 10 years to solve this little problem.

Nobody would have predicted 10 to 15 years ago that Greenland would lose ice that fast,’ Mr. Steffen said. ‘That revises all of the textbooks.’

His take-home message: Forget the scientific modeling. Greenland is melting faster than anyone’s best guess.

‘How can you have an ice sheet so big and respond that quickly?’ he asked. ‘That is still part of the mystery, to be honest.

Still time if we start today well maybe tomorrow but that’s pushing it and how do we get people on the same page? I don’t know the answer to that.