Population control in general
-
Yeah, it got a lot of coverage last week. An expedition from some institute or college in California is sending a ship out to study it - that was the reason for the publicity. I can't remember who it is that's behind the expedition.
I was driving around in my big honk'n Ford 150, when I saw a woman take one of those plastic grocery bags and pick up shiet behind her poodle. She tied it up and threw it in the trash, I now know what we must do to clean up the plastic bag flotilla in the Pacific. But the poodle won't like it.
-
I was driving around in my big honk'n Ford 150, when I saw a woman take one of those plastic grocery bags and pick up shiet behind her poodle. She tied it up and threw it in the trash, I now know what we must do to clean up the plastic bag flotilla in the Pacific. But the poodle won't like it.
-
wolfbinary wrote:
My responses: I would prefer simply a cap
Would that be a dutch one?
wolfbinary wrote:
I would rather have a law that prohibited more babies than a tax, because taxes are a class war tactic or igniter. Taxes that make it easier for some to have more of something than others only benefits the rich or better off.
What is wrong with that? Although a generalisation, it is the case that those with money are better educated and have the work ethic, it is these people we want to breed, not the morons and feckless. You say it is unfair, but is it fair that I work hard to find money taken from me to be given to lazy arsed uneducated parasites who have been given 11 years of free schooling only to come out unable to read and write but who can breed and introduce another generation of parasites to follow them.
------------------------------------ "Men may make bad decisions, immoral decisions or just plain wrong decisions, but at least they make decisions. Women on the other hand..." Patrick Kielty 2006
Dalek Dave wrote:
Would that be a dutch one?
I was just saying a cap on the total number of children you could have regardless of social class or financial class. In other words, you can have 2 kids and only 2 no matter what. Can't have kids then adopt.
Dalek Dave wrote:
wolfbinary wrote: I would rather have a law that prohibited more babies than a tax, because taxes are a class war tactic or igniter. Taxes that make it easier for some to have more of something than others only benefits the rich or better off. What is wrong with that? Although a generalization, it is the case that those with money are better educated and have the work ethic, it is these people we want to breed, not the morons and feckless. You say it is unfair, but is it fair that I work hard to find money taken from me to be given to lazy arsed uneducated parasites who have been given 11 years of free schooling only to come out unable to read and write but who can breed and introduce another generation of parasites to follow them.
It may be a generalization, but Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, etc are what comes to mind. There are plenty of rich kids born with silver spoons in their mouths who aren't genetically the best. My question then becomes who or how does the best get decided? If you don't mind being told you can't breed. Are we to now get into breeding humans as a society? Even well breed dogs have genetic issues. Trading one thing for another. Work ethic doesn't have anything to do with education or having lots of money. Try slaughtering cows or watching an episode of Dirty Jobs with Mike Rowe. I don't think they have any problem with working hard. What is your correlation between working and population control?
-
wolfbinary wrote:
What methods of population control are ethical?
Removing financial incentives for the poor having more kids, which we pay for. By accepting that every child has a cost to society and the earth, and thus giving people the right to one child for free, a right they can sell and that others need to buy, to have more than one. Enforcing this by removal of rights in society, and not by force, for example, no right to free education, or services, or any sort of government handout, and an increase in taxes, if more than one is had without following the overall scheme.
wolfbinary wrote:
How do you motivate people to control their breeding
The same way we motivate people to breed a lot now. Money.
wolfbinary wrote:
Who gets to decide the number of people there should be?
That number is pretty much known. Less then we have now, which is achieved through one child per couple.
wolfbinary wrote:
What role does human rights play into it?
Do you mean the 'right' of a person to have 10 kids on welfare, or the right of living humans today to live in a world that can sustain them ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
The same way we motivate people to breed a lot now. Money.
Not everyone is motivated by money. Then passing a tiered child tax rather than credit would work for you? 1 child = no tax 2 child = some tax, etc? So by this method the poor would be breed out of existence. Is this not class warfare? You're using the ability of someone to make money as the litmus test of their worth as a human being. Is George Bush Jr. worth more than you?
Christian Graus wrote:
Do you mean the 'right' of a person to have 10 kids on welfare, or the right of living humans today to live in a world that can sustain them ?
I mean the right of society forcefully telling other people what they can and can't do with their bodies in one of the most intimate ways.
-
Thats because you are a waste of time.
And so, you waste your time on ephemera, but cannot discuss the core point ? You're self deluded.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Nature will balance out the ecosystem. Quite frankly I don't give a damn if people starve, as long as they stay the hell out of my life they will starve in peace.
Only people who live in areas so small that they can support themselves ( New Zealand is one, I don't even know if Australia is, but I am sure Tasmania is ), stand a chance. Those people from New York will be knocking on your door with guns.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
No, I am saying that sad and lonely people create youtube videos as a way to deal with the randomness of life.
Every video a link to is sold as a real factual documentary. Its kind of a copyright issue for them to be on youtube, but that doesn't make the documentary any less valid.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Every video a link to is sold as a real factual documentary
So what ? Because people pay for it, it MUST be true ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The same way we motivate people to breed a lot now. Money.
Not everyone is motivated by money. Then passing a tiered child tax rather than credit would work for you? 1 child = no tax 2 child = some tax, etc? So by this method the poor would be breed out of existence. Is this not class warfare? You're using the ability of someone to make money as the litmus test of their worth as a human being. Is George Bush Jr. worth more than you?
Christian Graus wrote:
Do you mean the 'right' of a person to have 10 kids on welfare, or the right of living humans today to live in a world that can sustain them ?
I mean the right of society forcefully telling other people what they can and can't do with their bodies in one of the most intimate ways.
wolfbinary wrote:
Not everyone is motivated by money.
Everyone who is not self sufficient is motivated by it to some degree.
wolfbinary wrote:
Then passing a tiered child tax rather than credit would work for you? 1 child = no tax 2 child = some tax, etc? So by this method the poor would be breed out of existence. Is this not class warfare?
No, I don't mean that. Taxes exist as they do today. Every couple has the right to one child. If I want two kids, I need to pay some couple for their right to one child. This will favour the rich having more children, BUT it will create a chance for a one off big cash influx into the lives of every poor couple. One could even sell it early and buy another one later, when on their feet. But, if you don't buy the right, and still breed, then there's a prohibitive tax, which exists to stop people from ignoring the law and just having kids. Those children are also not allowed access to government health care ( in civilised countries ), or education, which would cause some problems, but the penalty needs to be enough to keep people within the system,
wolfbinary wrote:
You're using the ability of someone to make money as the litmus test of their worth as a human being.
Not at all. I do think the reverse is true now, people who have no money, because they refuse to ever work, are the ones being valued, in terms of their genes. They are the ones being motivated to breed.
wolfbinary wrote:
I mean the right of society forcefully telling other people what they can and can't do with their bodies in one of the most intimate ways.
Well, I think I made my position clear. You can have all the sex you want. When you have kids into a world that is already overpopulated, your rights and my rights are on a collision course.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
Would that be a dutch one?
I was just saying a cap on the total number of children you could have regardless of social class or financial class. In other words, you can have 2 kids and only 2 no matter what. Can't have kids then adopt.
Dalek Dave wrote:
wolfbinary wrote: I would rather have a law that prohibited more babies than a tax, because taxes are a class war tactic or igniter. Taxes that make it easier for some to have more of something than others only benefits the rich or better off. What is wrong with that? Although a generalization, it is the case that those with money are better educated and have the work ethic, it is these people we want to breed, not the morons and feckless. You say it is unfair, but is it fair that I work hard to find money taken from me to be given to lazy arsed uneducated parasites who have been given 11 years of free schooling only to come out unable to read and write but who can breed and introduce another generation of parasites to follow them.
It may be a generalization, but Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, etc are what comes to mind. There are plenty of rich kids born with silver spoons in their mouths who aren't genetically the best. My question then becomes who or how does the best get decided? If you don't mind being told you can't breed. Are we to now get into breeding humans as a society? Even well breed dogs have genetic issues. Trading one thing for another. Work ethic doesn't have anything to do with education or having lots of money. Try slaughtering cows or watching an episode of Dirty Jobs with Mike Rowe. I don't think they have any problem with working hard. What is your correlation between working and population control?
wolfbinary wrote:
In other words, you can have 2 kids and only 2 no matter what. Can't have kids then adopt.
Two is too many. The population needs to drop, not stabilise.
wolfbinary wrote:
It may be a generalization, but Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, etc are what comes to mind. There are plenty of rich kids born with silver spoons in their mouths who aren't genetically the best.
That much is true. I think a top cap that stops people like that from buying the right to have 20 kids is not a bad idea. The whole point tho, is not to say that rich == worthwhile or poor == useless. Fact is, money is the only possible motivator in a world where we would never accept forced abortions or forced sterilisations. Given these facts, why would people not just ignore any such law, if it had no teeth. Money is the only way to give it teeth.
wolfbinary wrote:
Work ethic doesn't have anything to do with education or having lots of money.
True. It has a LOT to do with the sort of people who live their lives on welfare and have 9 kids so their payments go up. Those are the people who are making the problem worse, not the working poor, who tend to have less kids, because they can't afford them.
wolfbinary wrote:
What is your correlation between working and population control?
Welfare slaves who never work a day, and who pertain to the issue at hand, because they breed for money. The working poor would have the right to one child, and I would propose that any adoption that occurs, should favor giving poor people who work a chance at having more than one. Hell, if there's no money in it, the welfare slaves are unlikely to want to adopt, as it would cost them money, rather than provide it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Believe me, I am in no way alone. I'm with tens of millions of people here in America, and more around the world. I'm no leader, I am just a messenger.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I'm with tens of millions of people here in America,
Unless they start to starve. Then you don't care, so long as they somehow magically decided to die quietly and leave you alone.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Only people who live in areas so small that they can support themselves ( New Zealand is one, I don't even know if Australia is, but I am sure Tasmania is ), stand a chance. Those people from New York will be knocking on your door with guns.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
The thing is though Christian. You assume the world is going to end and the skies will turn red with heat and all that stuff. It isn't, and if it is killing ourselves to save ourselves is a bunch of BS. What you want is for everyone to submit themselves to an elite which will dictate every aspect of our lives.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I'm with tens of millions of people here in America,
Unless they start to starve. Then you don't care, so long as they somehow magically decided to die quietly and leave you alone.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Unless they start to starve.
Who says they are going to starve?
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Every video a link to is sold as a real factual documentary
So what ? Because people pay for it, it MUST be true ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
So what ? Because people pay for it, it MUST be true ?
No, everything is provable.
-
wolfbinary wrote:
Not everyone is motivated by money.
Everyone who is not self sufficient is motivated by it to some degree.
wolfbinary wrote:
Then passing a tiered child tax rather than credit would work for you? 1 child = no tax 2 child = some tax, etc? So by this method the poor would be breed out of existence. Is this not class warfare?
No, I don't mean that. Taxes exist as they do today. Every couple has the right to one child. If I want two kids, I need to pay some couple for their right to one child. This will favour the rich having more children, BUT it will create a chance for a one off big cash influx into the lives of every poor couple. One could even sell it early and buy another one later, when on their feet. But, if you don't buy the right, and still breed, then there's a prohibitive tax, which exists to stop people from ignoring the law and just having kids. Those children are also not allowed access to government health care ( in civilised countries ), or education, which would cause some problems, but the penalty needs to be enough to keep people within the system,
wolfbinary wrote:
You're using the ability of someone to make money as the litmus test of their worth as a human being.
Not at all. I do think the reverse is true now, people who have no money, because they refuse to ever work, are the ones being valued, in terms of their genes. They are the ones being motivated to breed.
wolfbinary wrote:
I mean the right of society forcefully telling other people what they can and can't do with their bodies in one of the most intimate ways.
Well, I think I made my position clear. You can have all the sex you want. When you have kids into a world that is already overpopulated, your rights and my rights are on a collision course.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
The simple fact is Christain, the vast majority of people won't accept your sick little nazi like agenda.
-
The thing is though Christian. You assume the world is going to end and the skies will turn red with heat and all that stuff. It isn't, and if it is killing ourselves to save ourselves is a bunch of BS. What you want is for everyone to submit themselves to an elite which will dictate every aspect of our lives.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You assume the world is going to end and the skies will turn red with heat and all that stuff.
Sorry, what do I assume ?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
It isn't, and if it is killing ourselves to save ourselves is a bunch of BS.
That we are overpopulated is the plain truth, global warming or not. We are killing ourselves on the path we are on.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
What you want is for everyone to submit themselves to an elite which will dictate every aspect of our lives.
As usual, you speak utter crap, accusing me of beliefs I do not have, in order to bring things nicely round to discussion of your paranoid theories.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Unless they start to starve.
Who says they are going to starve?
You said above that you don't care if they starve, so long as they leave you alone. I said that food is going to be short because of overpopulation.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
So what ? Because people pay for it, it MUST be true ?
No, everything is provable.
Except that no-one ever proves it ? THere's enough of a grain of truth for people like you to find that it's not ALL made up, and then assume it's ALL true.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
The simple fact is Christain, the vast majority of people won't accept your sick little nazi like agenda.
There's nothing Nazi like about it, and only a retard would claim otherwise. You're probably right, I said that from the very first time we discussed it. And for this reason, we are probably all doomed, or, more likely, our population will drop to manageable levels as a result of major, worldwide wars. If a war between countries does not occur to kill off the surplus population, then civil war over resources will occur. That appears to be YOUR agenda, so long as the starving die in peace and give you a free pass to live.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Except that no-one ever proves it ? THere's enough of a grain of truth for people like you to find that it's not ALL made up, and then assume it's ALL true.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Where is your proof of all this overpopulation BS? What is a sustainable population?
-
There's nothing Nazi like about it, and only a retard would claim otherwise. You're probably right, I said that from the very first time we discussed it. And for this reason, we are probably all doomed, or, more likely, our population will drop to manageable levels as a result of major, worldwide wars. If a war between countries does not occur to kill off the surplus population, then civil war over resources will occur. That appears to be YOUR agenda, so long as the starving die in peace and give you a free pass to live.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Nazis didn't like to control their population with eugenics? What is your depopulation plan called "The final solution"?