oddjoe wrote:

I just have to start a thread on this news story that NPR just aired.  The octuplet mom has 6 prior children, 14 in all.

If the planet had a population of just 50 million, there wouldn't be a global warming issue to debate.  The pressure on the earth could be low enough to more easily sustain that level indefinitely.  We all could live in choice climate areas.  Everyone could have a private airplane.

Instead of raising fertility like for that mother, we need to lower it to close to zero for a generation or two.  Those who can have a child would be chosen randomly from the earth's population.

I type this from a hotel we have been in for 2 days because of no power due to an ice storm.  The earth has been cooling for 12 years.  There is no global warming issue to debate anyway.


By suggesting this lady should not have 14 kids, are you saying you are anti choice?

coachbob wrote:

I type this from a hotel we have been in for 2 days because of no power due to an ice storm.  The earth has been cooling for 12 years.  There is no global warming issue to debate anyway.


By suggesting this lady should not have 14 kids, are you saying you are anti choice?

euooh, yuk about the power outage.  I hope for speedy restoration of normal comforts.

I think that most people should not be allowed to have children.   Society limits our choices in many things.  Too many, sadly.  But until enough people learn to behave by themselves we unfortunately need choices limited.

This argument grates me the wrong way. It puts blame on the shoulders of child-bearing women while silencing the real agents of man-made global warming. That doesn't mean that people should shelf family planning altogether, but industrialization is the reason for environmental decline and the misallocation of natural resources. Suburban sprawl and the upkeep to maintain and expand America's unsustainable lifestyle is fueling the drive for more resources. The problem in the eugenic argument lies in our cultural drive to expand more material gain for ourselves, where a sustainable earth is a residual effect of possible outcomes, but not the central focus. Should we measure our progress of sustainability based on how many private jets we own...

The pressure on the earth could be low enough to more easily sustain that level indefinitely. We all could live in choice climate areas. Everyone could have a private airplane.

I'd like to believe in the altruistic motivations behind paring down the global population, but the rallying cries sound more like self-preservation to me. There is something about this line of reasoning that bothers me that I haven't completely explored, but it would involve a discussion about human nature, intelligence, hierarchy, and the values we place on ourselves vs. our global neighbors.

Anyhow, I just don't believe Americans should require all women to slim down their populations for what industrialized countries--mainly the US and Britain--has caused worldwide. When Americans are consuming 30% of the world's resources then it is incumbent on us to reduce our own populations before asking the world to follow suit.

I really do not think this woman's case is relevant to global overpopulation. In developed countries there has been a sharp drop in fertility; this woman is an extreme outlier. Global overpopulation can be addressed by giving women in the developing world complete control over their fertility.

oddjoe wrote:

I just have to start a thread on this news story that NPR just aired.  The octuplet mom has 6 prior children, 14 in all.

If the planet had a population of just 50 million, there wouldn't be a global warming issue to debate.  The pressure on the earth could be low enough to more easily sustain that level indefinitely.  We all could live in choice climate areas.  Everyone could have a private airplane.

Instead of raising fertility like for that mother, we need to lower it to close to zero for a generation or two.  Those who can have a child would be chosen randomly from the earth's population.

Hey, I have a better idea. Lets just use some biological weapons and wipe out the entire populations of China, India, the Middle East, and Africa because the majority of the rest of the world outside of those areas has had negative or 0 population growth for more than 2 generations.