Help fight overpopulation!

On July 16 -- and for the third year in a row -- President Bush announced that the United States would withhold $34 million in congressionally appropriated funds for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).

Reject Determination Defunding UNFPA!
This URL will let you email your Representative and Senator to Denounce the President's Decision:

http://capwiz.com/population/issues/alert/?alertid=6131026&type=CO

 

Maybe if Bush would stop cutting taxes for the rich we could spare those millions.

Overpopulation is an issue overlooked by Americans in my opinion. Thanks for the link.

 

Have you bothered to figure out why he is witholding funds?

 

We can stop overpopulation simply by not having so many kids. If people didn't have this selfish belief that it's their God given right to spit out as many kids as they want without consequence we wouldn't have this problem. Unfortunately we live in a selfish, gluttonous, short-sighted society. The mass breeders can't see past their own selfish desires. They care nothing for the world or the future world their many children will be left with when they're dead and gone. They care nothing for the environment. They care nothing for the other species of life our planet supports. They only care about the fact that they want lots of kids. I personally don't think people should have more than 2 kids, although 1 would be ideal for gaining control over our mass breeding problem. I see nothing wrong with 1 child or at the most 2. But it really pisses me off when people have more. 3 is extremely excessive.. any more is downright idiotic and horribly selfish. But alas many people do not hold this perspective. Again, they cannot see 2 feet beyond their own little existence nor do they care to. Ignorance and denial are truly bliss It would seem.

 

If they would just go ahead and nuke China, it would help a lot and we would have more time to work out a good plan....

 

Thats horrible... I love china... lol

Overpopulation isn't really a problem of too many people, its a problem of not enough resources for those people. Overpopulation isn't a problem in the US, Canada, China, or most of Europe because they have enough food for their populations, and the populations in these countries are only rising at about an average of 2 children per couple.

Overpopulation is a big problem in the third world, and I believe thats where the UNFPA is focusing. I support the goal, and I don't understand why the Bush administataion would hold back funding. I hope they actually have some kinda justification and aren't just cheap assholes. I don't feel like looking for a reason right now...

 

Overpopulation isn't really a problem of too many people, its a problem of not enough resources for those people.





..Which ultimately stems from too many people using up our earth's resources. There's more to think about than just OUR resources. These resources are other beings resources as well, animals and plant life. We share this planet with them and without them we cannot live. We need to think outside the box on this one. Consider someone else and something else for a change.

 

er... the earths resources are limitless... I was talking specifically about food, There be sufficient water, Nitrogen dioxide, and O2 long after were gone. I said I supported the UN's population control measures, but where they are really needed is in impoverished countries where populations are skyrocketting, and theres no telling how effective that'll be. No reason to get hostile.

 

I'm not being hostile.. sorry if I came off like it.. I totally agree with you about the impoverished nations too, however I will disagree with you that our resources are limitless. They are not.. especially if we keep on multiplying like we are as a species. You cannot deny that the human race as a whole has proven to be a plague upon the planet providing a slow death for all that live on it. Look at all the damage we've done in just a hundred years. We're polluting our air, land and water with all our waste and cause & effect. We could have enough resources to last us a bit longer than they will now but ultimately we are destined for some kind of extinction. Whether or not we kill everything in our path on our way down is up to us.

 

Extinction? I don't see us becoming extinct unless we blow ourselves up or get hit by a comet. An environmental crisis brought on by overpopulation could cause a mass die-off, but there would be survivors. Say Earth's population peaks at 10 billion and then only 1 in 1000 survives; that's still 10 million people, plenty to rebuild and repopulate. But why not try to lower our population now rather than wait until it's forced upon us?

 

Agreed...my extinction thing was a bit moot but I said it to create an image of a very possible reality attained by our own hands. We might survive but what about our planet? Starting to control ourselves now would definately reverse our demise, except for the next ice age inevitablity..

 

Yeah I mean.....China only has like 1/6 of the world's population right?

 

That wouldn't have been sarcasm would it? Don't boggle my mind there big papa.

Its actually more like a third (2 Billion). But also has about 10,000,000 SQ kilometers. Its population isn't a scourge as it can adequatly feed them, the quality of life is drasticly improving, and its birth rate has been steadily declining for the past 2 decades. Unlike many Asian and African Countries which simply dont have the resources to take care of their populations. As I said, the problem of overpopulation isn't really a problem of too many fucks... Its a problem of not having the resources to take care of the fucks.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ch

 

It is not only population numbers that are important, but also the standard of living those populations enjoy. If the world's population were to adopt western standards of living, we would need four more Earths to make it possible. The ecological footprint of the U.S. is much greater than that of other countries of similar population numbers.

 

Greater populations lead to more pollution and depletion of resources. Forests get cut down for living space, natural habitats for other species shrink, and more waste product is left behind. If we want to clean up the environment we need to reduce and stablize our population.

 

Thank you!!

 

Listen, I know its 'hip' to blame all enviormental problems on western civilization, but that just isn't the case. If by ecological footprints you mean negative enviormental concerns, then we are doing far better ecologically then the countries with similar population numbers, Brazil, and Indonesia. Both countries have very rapid expected growth rates, have inadequate sanitation, no enviormental controls on industry, use coal like Robert Downey Jr. uses coke, engage in rapid deforestation, and a large portion of these countries farmers still use slash and burn croping methods, which are horibly inefficient, ecologically disastorous, and result in more land to be cut down for more farming. (you can't farm after slash and burn for about a century)

Don't take this personally, but that 4 earths stuff is ludacris. If we collectivly use our resources wisely we will have more then we could ever possibly need. Through the next century Earths population will rise to about 10 billion, and then reach a mathematical stalemate in which the growth fizziles. I support population controls, but this growth and peak is pretty set in stone. Thinking we can reduce the population without a nuclear war is really wishy washy.

If we want to support a poulation of 10 billion and have them lead comforatable lives, then we need new solutions. In the 1960's many people said a massive starvation was going to affect the earths rapidly balloning population killing billions, but thanks largly to a handful of people who brought more effecient methods of farming to the third world, that massive starvation never took place. Here's a good article by the Nobel prize winning agronomist Dr. Norman Borlaug on how to feed a population of ten billion.

http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech_info/topics/borlaug/billions.html

We're at a great time in our evolution, and if we use our resources wisely, we can all live comforatably with megar enviormental maladies. Hydro power can make hydrogen fuel cells which are very enviormentally friendly, waste disposal is becoming very controlalable, and with high yield farming, more deorestation will become unneseacary, as clearing for farmlands is much more responsible for deforestation then lumber needs. Science can save our planet, but primative methods of agriculture and industry are poorly effecient, and ecologically unsound.

Like I said, I completly support the UNFPA, but the earths population will continue to grow for the next 50 years, and theres no telling how effective population controls are in the third world, where the measures are most needed. The world needs to live smarter, not nessecarily less populous.

 

You have got to be kidding. Do you honestly believe what you're saying? Science, alas, will ultimately not be able to alter what we have done to the planet. Case in point is the clearing of farm lands. I believe something was posted earlier about Thailand. Thailand undertook significant agricultural expansion between the 1950s and 1980s, in part in an attempt to increase exports. By your logic, since BE foods are more "efficient" there should be a corresponding decline in the amount of land being used for agriculture. So as Thailand adopts BE crops in place of supposedly less-efficient crops, a certain amount of land will be allowed to revert back to its natural state. Do you honestly think that this will happen, though? Be honest, and say "no". What will happen is that with less land being used to fulfill domestic needs, the surplus land will then be utilized to grow cash crops for export--initiatives that the Thai government is already undertaking. So clearly using scientifically manipulated crops will NOT be ecologically beneficial.

 

Naamiij I'll get back to you on that, I have a wicked hangover, and these socio-political debates aren't helping.I think I'm going to stick to the volatile porno meanderings in the love and sex forum for the rest of the day. You should start a thread on GM food so all the enviormental threads don't turn into this discussion.

 

my good friend has 14 aunts and over 30 first-cousins. Hahaha, so I guess she ain't helping the population problem.

As for me, if I have children at all, I plan to adopt a few. Partly because we already have enough people in the world... but I really don't think me not having my kids is going to help the situation all that much. I also plan to adopt because the thought of passing a bowling ball out of my uterius doesn't sound all that appealing . Also, if you have perfectly good kids who need a home, why would I make another? My closest friend is adopted, and plans to adopt as well... so maybe we could make a small difference. And why on Earth would I want to pass on my genes?

10 billion people in the world scares me very very much. I already feel small enough! Really, you are one in 10,000,000,000, why should you mean anything... oh I'm sorry Im way off topic but that thought scares me.

anyway...

~peace~