lecajef ... post #75 appears to be text taken from elsewhere, with neither quote nor source credited.

'Plagiarism' I believe is actually a term of French origin so should not be alien to you.

Please only partially quote offsite text and link to its source as only such is acceptable...;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism 

If I am not mistaken, the text "plagiarism" is good set by your care?

Message 48 and resumed(taken back) in message 75 and 31 ......

It is not Lecajef who is at the origin of the text or of this copy...

I was on a summercamp last weekend so haven't been able to answer until a few days ago.

Ofcourse. That's how it is.

Correct. They live in huts, don't have electricity, infrastructure or industries that 1st world countries have. Europe had to give them all that.

Correct again.

I'm not american. Union Carbide was an american company. Sure the CEO was Swedish but did Sweden ever make anything from Union Carbides products or profits?

You're talking about the entire 3rd world here?   I thought we were talking about africans

They work for crapwages since they haven't managed to establish unions like we in Sweden did back in 1800-something.

We don't got that right in Sweden.

Neither do I.

I will not lower my quality of life unless I absolutely have to. The americans can start, since they use the most resources by far.

I am active politically, and our ideology is biologically based and is in harmony with nature. We will stop the deforestation and the environmenal destruction but it will be a loong time before we get full power and can fix things unless civilwars break out which peakoil will help with.

Yes, malthus will prevail.

I suggest INDIA and CHINA get rid of half their population, this will definitely aid in reducing so called greenhouse gasses.

And how do you propose they get rid of them?

How do they decide who stays and who goes?

Who do they start with first?

Put another way... the government issues an edict that every family reduces its numbers by half.... who are you gong to kill off?

To say it is one thing, to carry it out is another.

You could simply take out all the staffers of those 'call centers' .... and the rest of the world will thank you....;p

More accurately, however....probably eliminating half the population of the US would do MORE to reduce man's impact on the planet/natural resources than 10 times that number within either China OR India.

Again it's this 'THEM is the problem' that people in the West try to hide behind, rather than concede THEY THEMSELVES are the real issue...;)

Ridiculous. I've been to India on business and it's a cesspool. I know people who've traveled to China - the Chinese are ravaging their environment.

To enlist cheap labour to feed the West's Corporate machine perhaps?...;p

I think the real issue here is that their prestige isn't reducing as they build new settlements. They must be able to build infinite pubs and inns like in the 1.1 version. 

Unfortunately, enforced migration to Mars has not been made viable as yet.  However, many of those call centres [probably most] represent US concerns... hence the annoying pain in the arse, while the call may come from Mumbai, originates from somewhere other than India.

That thought is one that's shared by many around the world, but the US is in serious industrial decline and will naturally pollute less as economic attrition wipes out the majority of US manufacturing concerns over the next 10 years.  Also, the gas guzzling, high polluting American car will be virtually extinct before the dawn of the next decade, with more eco-friendly cars being imported from Asia and more people having to resort to public transport due to prohibitive fuel costs. 

Yup, China will soon be the next economic top dog as the US goes further and further into economic/manufacturing decline.... and no, it's not Obama's fault, the damage was done decades ago. However, that's another story and one for another day.

A lot of the reason India is a cesspool is because Imperialists and industrialists used it as a dumping ground while they exploited it for all the resources they could extract. Yes, India has always had its poor and slum areas, a problem inherited from the caste system, but the current and needless poverty in India has been greatly exacerbated by Western concerns extracting resources while putting nothing back.  Like Jafo said, the West bears great responsibility for the ills inflicted upon this planet, yet it seeks to point fingers elsewhere and seeks to blame those less able through abject poverty to lead such sanitary, pristine lives.

Oh, and before we go declaring India a cesspool, I've spoken with ex-patriots and returning travelers who reckon there are areas of the US that are cesspools, with filthy slum precincts and as much grime and corruption as one could find anywhere in the world..... and given the wealth of the US....   Hmmm , a bit like the pot calling the kettle black, perhaps?

One part of the population equation that is missed here, so far, is the food/animal/factories that also produce horrendous amounts of methane.  Feeding this human population, is a no-win situation.  As the west increases food production, and ships it, sometimes freely, to 3rd world nations, their food supply increases, and their population goes up.  Natural cycle.   First world has cow factories, cows who live their entire existence in a tiny box, force fed chemicals and antibiotics, and milked...   same with chickens... etc... this massive animal farm system produces tremendous waste and pollution...while enabling humans to make even more babies that survive to adulthood.   As draconian as it sounds, set a limit to food sent out freely to areas where the land won't support large populations, and what do you expect to get?  A dependent on outside resources area that cannot support itself with even the necessities.   Some cities now have tankers (oil size) delivering, daily, massive amounts of water, because the area doesn't have any.   Live in a desert, plan to survive at desert levels....   (BTW, same applies to SW USA, where exurbanites move to desert climate and water their grass... stupid... make your lawn from native LOCAL plants... ) 

The goddamn hell? Most of these posts are scary. At how inaccurate they are. I don't even know where to begin, such anti-humanist rhetoric boils my damn blood. If you are among those that believe death is the answer to the global population concern.. then might I suggest you give the Earth a head start on helping reduce the population by promptly finding a cliff and becoming something useful; fertilizer. But no, I doubt anyone who says such things is willing to take that first & last leap. Though they'll sure as hell stand there pointing that holier-than-thou finger (that they just pulled from their ass) and tell others that they're the ones who need to sacrifice.

Some of us are out there actually trying to help people, to save them. Not find ways to starve them out to let the population reduce "naturally". Goddamn people, I guess some of you didn't get enough hugs as a child. Sigh.. Such concepts are horrorfyingly short-sighted. I mean damn, at any moment, every single person, place and thing you have ever known and loved could be wiped out, without any notice whatsoever.. A ball of ice and dust could simply reduce you to less than having ever existed at all. The Earth is a wonderful place, a beautiful place. It is the home of our people, but it is finite. And the directive of Life is very simple: survive. As our technology increases, we'll be able to reduce the damage and repair some that has already been done to the planet, that is a given. Great changes are coming our way within our lifetimes, some of them aren't going to be so good, but that is the price we pay for stepping out of the caves and staring up into the sky to wonder beyond ourselves.

Roughly twenty times, 20 the Earth has been nearly sterilized of all life. Do you think the Earth gives a damn if we are here or not? Spoilers: IT DOESN'T. But we, the few of us that exists here now.. We care. Every damn one of you is precious, and we live in a place that at every turn is attempting to snuff us out, not with intent mind you, but indifference.

So instead of being an asshole and pointing your admonishing finger at others, how about you use that finger in conjunction with your others to form a goddamn hand to help with this weight that is on all of our shoulders, which is quite literally.. the whole world, and not just the planet itself, but the people that live there.

-For humanity, with as always tomorrow as our destination.

It's just such unprovable beliefs that are a big part of how we've gotten to this biome-wrecking level of industrialisation and world overpopulation. Technology is not a kind deity or benevolent aliens with vastly superior powers, nor is it a force of nature like gravity or the spin of a quark. It is an autonomous product of our social systems and is just as likely to create new, worse problems as it is to 'fix' things. Until, that is, we manage to get a majority of folks aware enough to neither shun technology as 'evil modernity' nor worship it as the 'natural' path to a bright, shiny future.

That said, I'm also a humanist and agree that more than a few posts in this thread are scary. I try to console myself with a belief that the illusory anonymity of the Internet has encouraged some posters to rant more fiercely than they would in the presence of actual people who knew them. But the fundamental problem for folks who like the label humanist is that a great many of our fellow humans are cruel, dangerously ignorant, or some combination thereof. That's why I'm very leery of any institutional effort to control population. Institutions tend to get captured by narrow interests that fail to serve or even work against the goals of the folks who establish them (e.g. the US FDA). We need a worldwide social movement that leaves every potential mother aware of her reproductive options and the benefits (personal and for communities) of restraining herself to one or two children, preferably one for however long it takes us to get peaceably down to a billion or so.

Probably true, but since "progress" will occur, we'll (or someone) will be able to check this. More likely? Trading problems or just accumulating new ones.

We need 'licensing' for those who desire to reproduce. We do it to drive cars, no? Is this any less important? I think everyone feels it's even moreso. For those not willing (for whatever reason) to comply? I'd like to see what everyone proposes...

GW Swicord, QFT. I agree with what you've said. Education is the key to the problem imo. Technology isn't a good thing nor is it a bad thing. It is indifferent. My personal view is that we'll advance beyond most of the problems we have in society today. Or we won't. No real gray area here, you either advance and survive, or you cease being as a species.

DrJBHL, as for what you suggested, I can see some instances where licensing would be a somewhat valid option.. However, I'm quite weary of the idea due to it is only a step away from sterilizing a population because they weren't privileged enough to be able to afford such things. Who polices it? What happens to those who break the rules? We talking genocide? Oh look, you have 8 children, ain't that swell. Pick your two favorite and hug the other 6 goodbye, or hug 7 goodbye and get a gift card for some food stamps. Spooky stuff there when you think about it. So the problem goes far deeper than just reproduction imo. The economic system on the global scale needs a rework. And sadly, wishful thinking and high hopes will not bring it about. We need to work at it, and with the tools of technology, hopefully attain it. Get educated, recieve path to victory. And cookies..

Overpopulation?  Look, given the current numbers of reproduction rates, that is mathematically improbable.  Deutsche Bank issued a report in May detailing the global population will no longer be replacing itself in the 2020s.  [http://www.scribd.com/doc/55392761/Demografia-No-Mundo]

“In our view, the human race will no longer be replacing itself by the early 2020s. Population growth will continue for a few more decades because of momentum from the age structure and people living longer but, reproductively speaking, our species will no longer be growing. This will be one of the most important turning points in history.”

The Economist magazine also printed an article on the rapidly fallen levels of global fertility rates. [http://www.economist.com/node/14743589]

I already posted the effects of BPA and fetility but here is a link to Yale's studies in proof:  [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elaine-shannon/yale-scientists-discover_b_221518.html]

What worries me personally are these new studies on GM crops and its disturbing effects on the fetus alongside fertility damage.  [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1085060/Why-eating-GM-food-lower-fertility.html]

In the future there may be a crisis of underpopulation, an implosion.  These fears of overpopulation are unwarranted.  There are too many effective population reduction mechanisms and the numbers show we may be looking forward somwhere along the lines to a Children of Men fate.

Yes, rogue captain, we are poisoning ourselves.  And we continue to live and push population growth in areas that cant support that population unless huge amounts of food and water (and oil -us westerners) are transported into those areas.

I feel that it is so much easier to have babies without any training on how to parent, than it is to, as, doc says, get a license to drive a car. Add to that people have multiple babies with any way to feed, house, etc those babies, (or sometimes, as a means to garner more free-to- them monies from democratic govts and charities). Its both a feeding issue, and a child rearing issue.

Licensing is all fine a and good regarding having a baby.  But how do you enforce it?  I would dread seeing what the Chinese people went through happen again, either there, or somewhere else.  How are you going to minimize the uber -rich from taking too much advantage of a truly limited 'resource' - the licenses?  How will you keep the killing / disposing of / etc. the many females that wont be born because people generally prefer (and I believe wrongly so) male babies? And what effect will the new genetics have in the role of 'making' babies?  And to whose benefit?  Will we end up with a genetically programmed caste system?

Now to the person that wrote about the humanitarian impulse regarding this issue.  While I agree that our species needs better ways to handle this, and I agree that killing off zillions of people is wrong, I also believe the idea of growing 'even' more food as a humanitarian is a losing proposition.  Actually, in terms of the total amount of human suffering, it may be worse than not raping the planet to grow even more food.   Every-time we come up with a way to grow more food, the green revolution, massive amounts of oil turned into fertilizer and chemicals to grow more food in the west / USA, etc., the total food supply goes up.  Much of that surplus is given to very poor countries.  What happens, there is now more food so the population grows.  We cannot 'win' the fight between food growth and population growth.  Pop will grow until all food is consumed - surpluses get turned into new humans.  The only difference, now is that more people end up hungry and starving than would have if the food hadn't been sent in the first place. Very sad.  Until self sustaining means to grow foods locally for most populations is created, systematic starvation will occur.  The only question, sadly, is how many will starve.  I'm sorry if that sounds harsh and inhumane.  But if organizations would stop pushing industrial scale food production, and instead find ways for each area to grow their own food, and make things of value to trade for other things, these Malthusian starvation episodes and perpetual hungers will continue.  

I don't believe its truly humanitarian to throw the poor people a fish, as that merely postpones the starvation cycle until they have even more babies -and even more people to suffer.  Instead, make them part of the 'family /community' that has enough food.  When I gave the poor some food, they called me a saint, when I asked why there were poor people, they called me an anti-American, unpatriotic socialist, tree hugger.  Until the uber -corporations and the uber-rich (who control the uber corporations) return massive amounts of their ill gotten gains, the poor will starve.  And humanitarian folks, who truly want to help the poor , will continue be tricked by the propaganda machine of the uber wealthy into thinking that throwing some food at the poor is equivalent to implementing a truly just economic system that would allow these poor, and their descendants to escape abject poverty - and have the leisure time to rear capable children with love.

No one said anything like that. No kids 'til you prove yourself morally, ethically and financially responsible. Will it happen? No. There are standards, but too many PC cowards.

Chlorophyll?

Or alternatively, we could execute bankers; corporate high flyers; industrialists; lawyers; advertising execs and the majority of politicians.  All are a blight on the planet and humanity... no great loss.

Oh, and while we're at it, let's scrub out any doctors and nurse who may treat them... and all their kids so nobody can perpetuate their bloodlines. 

Actually, I've done my part for population control... stopped chasing and procreating with wild women a few years ago.  Well more like the arthritis slowed me down too much and I just couldn't catch any anymore.  Sadder still, none thought I was worth chasing... despite my obvious slowness and inability to run.

Stop all aid to foreign countries.

Problem solved.

Problems solved.  Actually.

But that's too inhumane probably.

Can't we talk about something warm and fuzzy?  Like human trafficking?  Or the death of Betty Ford?

Actually, the cessation of foreign aid by the US will occur without a conscious decision to terminate it.... the coffers will be empty due to economic collapse and charity having to begin at home.  Can't give what you haven't got, right?

Oh, and my other contribution to population control.... I've ceased donations to the sperm bank.  

You may be right starkers, but by that point it will be too late to make a difference.  It may already be too late to make a difference.

Betty Ford though.  She was one classy lady, helped drive the ERA movement, helped convince women that breast cancer wasn't something to be ashamed of, helped a bunch of useless celebrities clean themselves up...

Well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

An ERA ....;p