Posted on 08/13/2007 7:07:25 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback
Duped out of motherhood
Daily Mail 24th February 2006 | KATE MULVEY
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1585427/posts
Where did I say that to support something one must find that everyone who supports it is a good person?
What I said was that the list of people who support zero or sub-zero population growth is a list of people who love death.
Keep on dancing around all you want, but the bottom line is that being zero-pop is being anti-human, and it means that at best one has a vision of human value that is totaly at odds with reality and support of life.
It is amazing to me that anyone can believe the garbage spouted by these thoroughly discredited Malthusian prophets.
No organism or civilization can survive without growth. The population trend of Western civilization is staggeringly apparent, and growth is not the problem!
Zero growth = death.
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
The irony is, we’d have to have an upswing in the birthrate for Americans (born in the USA) to reach mere replacement: ZPG. The entire increase in US population is due to immigrants and the first-generation children of immigrants.
And I love the well-raised children of immigrants.
This is an indictment of Americans, with our 0 or 1 or 2 child families. No children, no future.
This is a fascinating look at one of those issues that cuts across traditional liberal/conservative lines. I have no problem with increasing human population or caring for children both born and unborn. I also believe that people should think long and hard about the number and quality of offspring that they bring into our world.
You have probably heard of the baby boom of the 50s and 60s. This high birth rate takes a while to work its way through the 75 year average lifespan. Which means our population will continue to go up until the baby boomers begin to die off in quantity, even when we’re presently below replacement rate.
Obviously, a baby born this year does not begin to reproduce this year or next, so there is at least a 20+ year lag before changes in birth rate begin to significantly impact total population numbers. What does begin to change very rapidly is the number of people in each age group. There are far fewer children as a percentage of the population than there were 30 years ago, and a great many more elderly. When those elderly begin to die in large numbers, population growth will slow and then go into reverse.
If there were no immigration, legal or illegal, we’d be slightly below replacement rate at this time. We do have immigration of both types, of course, and their presence and that of their offspring is a significant contributor to our population growth in the last 20 to 30 years.
Estimated population in 1980 was 227M.
BTW, another reason for the growth in population is that people are living quite a bit longer today.
Alright you caught me. I'm anti-human. I also favor residential zoning regulations within 5 miles of my home and that makes me anti-business. I also supported our neighborhood building a new park which makes me a tree-hugging hippie. Due to constitutional issues I disagree with Federal drug laws which makes me a no good doper.
Where did I say that to support something one must find that everyone who supports it is a good person? What I said was that the list of people who support zero or sub-zero population growth is a list of people who love death
I don't know how to respond to that. You asked a question and then immediately answered it. (example.....When did I ever type a contraction? You just don't pay attention.) By criticizing the list of people who advocate an issue you are in fact saying that the issue is not valid in part because of who advocates it. The bottom line is that I don't think the government should enact policies making it easier for fools and naer-do-wells to procreate and raise foolish and naer-do-well children. I think it is ridiculous to think that more is always better regardless of what or who the 'more' is.
IHave you noticed the antiintuitive fact that families in rural communities are larger thasn families in urban communiities?
My what a good idea. Or is it?
Social engineering through taxation is a fundamental tenant of Maarxism. We are steeped in this approach.
A government that seeks to promote the general welfare through the distribution of wealth is a tyrant.
We have had nearly 60 million abortions. The birth rate per family has declined. Add to this a declining global birth rate that will reflect negative growth in Europe and North America by 2020.
Where do we go from there to demonstrate the source of increased population? Is there any possibility other than increased immigration?
It’s the epitome of human arrogance to define which of its own has the right to procreate.
That is not zero-pop. That is basic conservatism.
I think it is ridiculous to think that more is always better regardless of what or who the 'more' is.
1. I think it is ridiculous to think that less is better simply because they are less, or because they are less than some arbitrary number. That is the core of zero-pop.
2. I'd say that more corvettes in my life would be a definite good, and no one would argue that they were not an asset. However, if I left the top down on a couple of them every day for a year and the interiors rotted out, that would be on me, and a person who said "Fewer Corvettes is better, because yours are in bad shape" would be pretty far off target. Yet you say we should have fewer people because some people have treated their kids badly or squandered their lives. Same difference.
3. If my view that humans are an asset is so ridiculous, then please, share with me some historical data about empires or nations that followed a population reduction regime and did well. I'm sure you have plenty of examples.
Those are two very different things. One is straight from Hell and the other is simple personal responsibility.
.
I disagree. I believe the status quo is one of "more is better." The more children anyone has the better. You are rewarded with tax credits, more food stamps and more welfare. The more people the better. We let tens of millions flow into the country to grow the workforce. We set up an immigration policy that puts emphasis on quantity over quality of immigrant. What I advocate is a hard look at the "more is better" philosophy of civic policy.
What you advocate is curing socialism with death and denigration of human dignity. Talk about fighting fire with fire...
Got that list of successful pop-reduction programs yet?
In which of my posts did I do that? DEATH????HUMAN DIGNITY????
Let me explain something to you. In all cases the govt. can choose to react to the people in one of three ways. They can endorse, condemn or ignore. Being a conservative and in favor of small govt., I push for the govt. to ignore the people on almost all occasions. If the status quo is for the govt. to actively endorse a policy of 'more is better' than I wish to change that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.