Things that are WAAY overdue

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by kazbates

Because people have a right to have children. I am sorry that there are hungry children in the world. There shouldn't be and we should be ashamed that there are, but that should not be a reason for people not to have children of their own...

This unfortunately sounds like, "I'm sorry I'm prosperous and have all the food and you don't, but that just means I should have all the kids I want, and you shouldn't have any."

Something else that's waay overdue: A hard look at "Rights."

There are rights... and there are rights. And no matter what idealists (and most Americans) want to believe, there are natural and practical limits to all rights. You've heard the saying, "Your right to swing your fist ends before it touches my nose." Well, our right to have children ends at the irrevocable damage our numbers do to the planet, and the forced starvation of entire peoples caused by the hoarding of food by other peoples.

[Patricia]

The European Convention on Human Rights states: "Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family" [Article 12].

But this is generally interpreted as a negative right: no one should stop a couple from founding a family. Few states interpret it as a positive right: that the state has a duty to provide reproductive assistance for the infertile.

Arguably, the population in developing states is going through the same period of demographic transition that industrialised states went through in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Before industrialisation, children were a resource. A family could set children to work at an early age. So they would have large familes. Many of the children would die young. But one or two would survive to support their parents through old age.
But one of the benefits of the industrial revolution was that states could afford better healthcare. In the UK it took several generations before the message got through. Hence my grandfather was one of 12 children. I have 2 siblings; but only one child. Children are no longer a resource in the developed world. Instead they are becoming a luxury.
Meanwhile, in the developing countries, people are in the intermediate stage where they are not yet confident that the state (or a work-related pension) will provide for their old age. Children are still seen as a resource. Throwing condoms at the problem will not help. Educating women and giving them equal rights (and enforcing those rights) is generally seen as the best way to move forward. People need a good reason to limit the size of their families. If women are in a position to earn an income sufficient to provide for a small family, with a strong probability that all their children will survive to adulthood, then they are more likely to decide on smaller families with a better quality of life for each child.

[yvanleterrible]

Originally Posted by balok

Dude, how does that change anything that I wrote in my earlier post? And where do you get that 30% number? Is that the maximum possible?

Obviously cars and trucks have their uses. We're just not putting them to good use, and hybrids and electrics will not solve that problem. Most people who "need" their car for work are stuck in a system that makes them need their car for work. If a guy has to take three busses and spend two hours twice a day getting to and from work, it's understandable that he would take his car and get there in 20 minutes. The problem is that hybrids/electrics won't help change that. They'll lull the government into thinking that it's not necessary to invest in public transit to solve global warming issues.

Well... dude(it's not my name BTW)... It's obvious you live in the city or close around. You said in your post that we shouldn't buy any car even EVs. That's from your point of view and I don't agree because here there are no public transports, and so it is for the rest of the province. So far only big centers have them. Do you have a car... children? If I had to rent a vehicle to do my chores, I'd have to rent one at least every two days minimum. Better to own a good one or a horse and buggy. Personnally, I'd rather have an EV and a solar array to feed it's batteries. They say "Buy an EV and solar panels and you bought a car and its fuel supply for thirty years!" That's plenty sense enough unless you live in the cities.

Montreal's public transport is already saturated and trains are late every day. And they say to take the bus as the system is going bankrupt.

[yvanleterrible]

Originally Posted by balok

How about:

Mandatory speed governors on all automobiles. Variable speed governors could be radio-controlled according to the speed limit in the zone where you're driving.

There's a proposition that will never be adopted. People think they have the "right" to break the law.

I totally agree with speed governors, I've been dreaming of them for a long while.

An other objection I hear from people against them is "What if pirates get a hold on one of those devices?"

As for a previous post on natality control, I believe that couples procreating should be allowed a maximum of one child per person (two per couple). If you count that not everybody wants children, population will dwindle naturally, as it does here.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

I totally agree with speed governors, I've been dreaming of them for a long while.

An other objection I hear from people against them is "What if pirates get a hold on one of those devices?"

"What if pirates?" "What if terrorists?" That's a lousy reason not to do something sensible. Worried about criminals? Step up law enforcement.

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

As for a previous post on natality control, I believe that couples procreating should be allowed a maximum of one child per person (two per couple). If you count that not everybody wants children, population will dwindle naturally, as it does here.

A logical strategy, except I'd argue that we need to decrease our numbers far faster than that... so let's go with one child per couple to start, and if numbers don't go down fast enough, the option to go to a lottery system. I know, I know, no one wants to hear that... but we're not talking about a minor inconvenience, a few fewer french fries for everyone, we're talking about the oversaturation of a planet that is already oversaturated with humans by at least a factor of 1,000, and saving entire populations from starvation.

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

This unfortunately sounds like, "I'm sorry I'm prosperous and have all the food and you don't, but that just means I should have all the kids I want, and you shouldn't have any."

Something else that's waay overdue: A hard look at "Rights."

There are rights... and there are rights. And no matter what idealists (and most Americans) want to believe, there are natural and practical limits to all rights. You've heard the saying, "Your right to swing your fist ends before it touches my nose." Well, our right to have children ends at the irrevocable damage our numbers do to the planet, and the forced starvation of entire peoples caused by the hoarding of food by other peoples.

Forgive me, but I'm not exactly sure what you meant by the bolded statement. I'm not apologizing for being prosperous. The prosperity I have is based upon the generations of my family that have come before me. My grandfather's father came from Ireland looking for a better life in the US. He did. . .okay. . .as a farmer in Missouri. His son, my grandfather, became a railroad engineer, and my grandfather's daughter, my mother, was a nurse (she is now retired). Thanks to these hardworking people, I was given a good education which allowed me to give my children a good education. I could give you the same series of steps in the case of my father. At each of these generational levels, they built on the prosperity of the one that came before. I never take that for granted. Having said that, I don't see that the prosperity of my family automatically requires me to correct all the problems facing other people on this planet. I have a moral obligation to do what I can and I do, but that is something private. My statements have been that everyone has the right to procreate, but that they should do it responsibly.
If you choose not to have children becuase you feel that you would be contributing to the over population of the planet, I respect that. I would hope that you would respect my decision to have children that I can support, bit financially and emotionally.

Originally Posted by Patricia

The European Conv
ention on Human Rights states: "Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family" [Article 12].

But this is generally interpreted as a negative right: no one should stop a couple from founding a family. Few states interpret it as a positive right: that the state has a duty to provide reproductive assistance for the infertile.

Arguably, the population in developing states is going through the same period of demographic transition that industrialised states went through in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Before industrialisation, children were a resource. A family could set children to work at an early age. So they would have large familes. Many of the children would die young. But one or two would survive to support their parents through old age.
But one of the benefits of the industrial revolution was that states could afford better healthcare. In the UK it took several generations before the message got through. Hence my grandfather was one of 12 children. I have 2 siblings; but only one child. Children are no longer a resource in the developed world. Instead they are becoming a luxury.
Meanwhile, in the developing countries, people are in the intermediate stage where they are not yet confident that the state (or a work-related pension) will provide for their old age. Children are still seen as a resource. Throwing condoms at the problem will not help. Educating women and giving them equal rights (and enforcing those rights) is generally seen as the best way to move forward. People need a good reason to limit the size of their families. If women are in a position to earn an income sufficient to provide for a small family, with a strong probability that all their children will survive to adulthood, then they are more likely to decide on smaller families with a better quality of life for each child.

Well said.

[yvanleterrible]

An other thing overdue.
Wasteful farming practices.

[GlennD]

Reproduction can be a sensitive topic; as a father of five I certainly take it personally when people imply or tell me that I'm being irresponsible. I don't ask anyone else to care for them - my wife and I provide for their physical and other needs without asking for help from the government or anyone else.

Much of Western Europe already has below-replacement fertility rates. The United States is above replacement levels, but not by much. The UN estimates that by 2050 world-wide fertility rates will be below the replacement level.

Some may feel that is too little, too late. I look at the amount of food we throw away in the US and I tend to think that much of the hunger problem isn't due to overpopulation, but to the fact that we tend to consume way more than we need to and throw away far too much that could be used. Take a look at what a typical grocery store or restaurant tosses out. Some estimates indicate that the US throws away almost half of our food. Maybe it's 'about time' we turned that waste into sustenance...

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

As for a previous post on natality control, I believe that couples procreating should be allowed a maximum of one child per person (two per couple). If you count that not everybody wants children, population will dwindle naturally, as it does here.

And what if you get triplets? Oops? Let's kill one?

And no, triplets don't only occur with fertility procedures, they also happen naturally.

(I actually knew a pair that didn't even tried to get children (but they didn't try not to get children either) that got a triplet...)

[yvanleterrible]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

And what if you get triplets? Oops? Let's kill one?

And no, triplets don't only occur with fertility procedures, they also happen naturally.

(I actually knew a pair that didn't even tried to get children (but they didn't try not to get children either) that got a triplet...)

Far from me the thought! I believe in preserving life. There are two sets of triplets in my wife's extended family and they're natural so I get a feeling of what you're saying.

I gave the subject some more thought yesterday. The biggest culprit threatening the planet is greed. Those who suffer from it will never admit it. And don't try to take anything from them. Communism has tried it and failed. I some times believe that like the proverbial lemmings, we're headed straight for a cliff.

[balok]

Originally Posted by kazbates

The prosperity I have is based upon the generations of my family that have come before me.

False.

It is based primarily on economic exploitation of the third world.

The idea that American prosperity comes from a good work ethic belongs to the 1800s. Things are completely different today.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

Far from me the thought! I believe in preserving life. There are two sets of triplets in my wife's extended family and they're natural so I get a feeling of what you're saying.

I gave the subject some more thought yesterday. The biggest culprit threatening the planet is greed. Those who suffer from it will never admit it. And don't try to take anything from them. Communism has tried it and failed. I some times believe that like the proverbial lemmings, we're headed straight for a cliff.

I decided not to take kids, partly because I just don't like children (I start to like them when they're at least 6 years, start to make sense and leave after about 8 hours for home, I've got two darling nephews, who live 300km away ), but also because it doesn't feel right to put more children on the world. I have been thinking about adoption, but then the first reason interfered...

So, I took two cats from the shelter...

[balok]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

You said in your post that we shouldn't buy any car even EVs.

My point is that EVs keep people from walking or using public transit. They encourage people to buy a car when they could do without one.

That's from your point of view and I don't agree because here there are no public transports, and so it is for the rest of the province.

Do you think electric vehicles will help solve the problem of the lack of public transit? Definitely not.

Once again, let me say that I'm not against the existence of cars. I'm against their irresponsible use. Government planning should aim at reducing dependency on cars so that it won't be necessary for some people to purchase even an electric vehicle. The lack of public transit outside the city is not an excuse for irresponsible use of cars. There's a lot that can be done even outside urban centers to reduce the dependency. In that perspective, EVs are not part of the solution, they're part of the problem.

So far only big centers have them. Do you have a car... children? If I had to rent a vehicle to do my chores, I'd have to rent one at least every two days minimum.

I do have one, and I agree that with my three children it's necessary to have one in order to maintain a North American lifestyle. However, I'm questioning whether we should maintain the North American lifestyle. I've implemented changes in my own lifestyle to reduce the dependency, like walking everywhere within a radius of 3km from my house (1 hour round trip), or greater distances if time is available. In the summer, a bike and a trailer are sufficient for the large majority of shopping, practically anywhere in the city (like 20km or more). Wise government decisions in the past have made it more cost-efficient for me to take the bus to work.

I actually only keep a car for going to my cottage once a month and hauling cordwood. Of course I give into temptation and use it for other purposes now and then (especially my wife), but never if the destination is under 3km (that's a sacred rule). I wish the government would step in and give me an incentive to get rid of my car.

[balok]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

I just don't like children

What are you, Hitler? Are you even human?

It seems to me that liking children is hard-wired into every human. It's like one of the three laws of robotics, but for humans.

[balok]

Originally Posted by GlennD

I look at the amount of food we throw away in the US and I tend to think that much of the hunger problem isn't due to overpopulation, but to the fact that we tend to consume way more than we need to and throw away far too much that could be used.

If rationally managed, the planet is capable of supporting twice its current population, according to many estimates. I'm not saying that we should aim for 10 billion. I'm just saying that it's possible to feed everyone on earth, if we can put a little order into food production, distribution, and consumption.