Nice talk by Hans Roling. [video=youtube;fTznEIZRkLg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTznEIZRkLg[/video] any thoughts?
I don't have time to watch that at the moment, but I sincerely hope he isn't pushing the usual government funded eugenics ideology of over-population. Over population is utter pseudo-science which preys on people's ignorance in order to convince them we need to adopt some horrific one child policy like China. The solution to third world countries is to help them become first world countries. It's known that industrialised nations stabilise their population. But the elite don't want this, hence the global warming scam which forbids the poor countries from becoming industrialised for the fear of releasing the big bad 'poison' carbon-dioxide... which plants breathe and we exhale... Some people in influential positions who I've heard from disagree though, and believe they simply need to "be told not to have so many children" - yeah, 'cause life's that simple. EDIT: Just saw him use the word 'global governance'. We should be weary of him. http://overpopulationisamyth.com/
Sounds good. Improved child survival rates correlate with decreased fertility rates. Did we establish causation? Where do I send my check, the Gates foundation, Al Gore, or perhaps directly to Chris Anderson? Personally, I love videos that oversimplify complex problems to the 2nd grade level with the use of a few tupper ware boxes and a guy with a funny accent. Had he pointed out many of the other related numbers, such as the shift away from agrarian economies, I fear I would have missed his point. Brum, I'm right on board with you. Be VERY wary of a guy talking about immediately tackling green energy/global warming and promoting global governance, especially if he's Swedish. I'm all for helping reduce infant mortality rates around the planet, but it sounds like he can keep most of the rest of his "change". The reading up on TED was rather interesting. As a non-profit, they've got 32 million dollars in the bank and throw these rather swanky brain share seminars that attract big names. Each year since 2005 they've been giving $100k to three TED prize recipients to pursue some lofty goal. The first prize winner was Bono, who spent the money on blow and hookers(ok, I made that last part up). Apparently, in 2010, they reduced the number of prizes awarded per year to one, since none of the previous prize winners had accomplished their goals. Perhaps it was also taking too big of a bite out of that 32 million dollars in the bank. You have to love the philanthropy business. This guy is my friggin hero. I imagine water will be the resource in most demand at some point, not oil.
LOL. Why do people say that? 75% of earth is water and when needed we will develop the technology to even make sea water consumable.
We already have it. Its improving dramatically, but still a long way off from being cost effective. We've been running on a drought for a very long time in California. I guess that's what happens when you try and turn places like Las Vegas from desert into an ocean of golf courses.
Interesting some people would criticize the China policy of self control as being "horrific", when the opposite consequence of unsustainable growth is the more accurate description of a condition leading to a horrific conclusion......the policy was designed to avert. Mankind is only a fraction of the Garden but just a few (really the majority) could possibly imperil the existence of all that lives on earth.
Interesting some people would use "self control" as a euphemism for China's forced abortions, financial punishment and (in some cases) outright murder. The policy that exists in China today is not the only way to tackle the problem, it's just the cheapest and quickest - which seems to be the motto applied to everything there. How about allowing the vast majority of Chinese, those living outside the Orwellian cities, in on the industrialisation and education? What am I saying, that would mean the Commies actually fulfilling the egalitarianism they initially conned the people into believing until they took power.
They are but a distant memory. I'd say the largest scale of such great values these days is on state level - no longer national or federal - which isn't even that widespread anyway. Governments rarely recognise our Constitutional rights any more. We have 'allowances' those in power occasionally grant us. It is bad here in Airstrip-one. I see things accelerating in America because it is one of the last, if not the last, nations left with some shred of civil liberty. The founding fathers and those who fought for liberty must be turning in their graves...
BRUm. This is a very interesting issue. The question is a matter of your premise: if you think that low-birth rate is an important goal and/or value (1), or not (2). If (1), then the debate should revolve around whether low-birth rate should be imposed on people or they should be allowed to chose freely. Here, I would say that it should be imposed. Maybe not to the extreme of 1-child policy, but there should be some restrictions. As for the "great western values of freedom". You also do not have the freedom to throw litter in the middle of the street. The western values of freedom have a restraining mechanism: freedom ends when your actions are hurting a person or the overall benefit of your community. I think that 6 or more children per women is a crime against humanity. If every[/]b woman on earth had 6 children, in 4-5 generations there will be no humanity. Earth will be a nuked wasteland. Therefore, birth-control is indeed limiting your freedom but it can be justified more easily based on the above than anti-littering laws: it would be the life saviour of your offsprings and our planet. If (2), then we have nothing to debate about. People who think that birth-control is not important and the more children the merry, what they need is education and not a debate. but the whole point of the talk is: make all people of the world richer and better educated. Then you wouldn't need birth-control and the debate (1) will be pointless: birth-control will happen from itself, as we know for a fact just by looking at the world today.
I don't agree. Putting a ceiling on how many kids one can have is one of the worst abuse of Human rights. Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes Reproductive rights as an important subset of Human rights. Its okay to encourage having less children by giving tax concessions or other sops but a Talibani order is unacceptable. Another demerit of population control is the increase in the average age of citizens leading to an increase in unproductive population and thus a greater demand for Social security measures. IMO demerits of over population are a myth. What we need is a cheaper and environment friendly energy source and a development of a culture for environment conservation. With all that we can accommodate even 100 billion people. According to some calculations China's entire population can be housed in Beijing if you built nothing but houses in the entire city. Resources are the real problem, not space. But then there's a lot of iron ore on mars and helium on moon and more resources then we can ever imagine in our galaxy. Advancement in Science can solve all problems. I also agree that education and wealth creation will automatically stabilize population but for that to happen it is necessary for some people to forgo their greed.
I do not support neutralization so people can not have children at all The declaration of human rights recognizes many rights, but each and every one of them is up to a certain limit. This is the core of our difference. As far as I know, at the current level of technology and consumption, growing to 20 billion will already mean a complete depletion all of resources and a worldwide nuclear war. Not for our current level of technology. When we will have better technology and COULD accommodate more people, then the laws should be reconsidered. But you don't buy a big house and take a mortgage before you know how u'll pay the huge debt. First develop the technology and see that it works, then let the population grow.
I don't disagree. But even as an atheist I could't ever support enforced birth control. Like you said, educate and encourage industrialisation and the problem sorts itself out as shown by my country's negative birth growth rate. No idea where you get the idea that x number of people causes nuclear war. It's utterly futile to even bother quantifying the population limit, it's too complicated and besides, everyone so far in the past have been incorrect. By the way, I find your avatar as cringe worthy as pro-theist imagery. It holds an air of arrogance mate. I don't go about wearing my views despite probably being similar to yours.
Most western nations don't have this problem. Europe's fertility rate has already dropped well below 2, and the US is hovering around 2.1 even though we import 1.6 million annually people from abroad. I was really thrilled to see India has gotten their fertility rate down to the low 2s with no such programs. The pink elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about is Africa. Nearly all of the African countries peg the top of the chart with fertility rates averaging around 6. According to the Swed in the video, if we fix the infant mortality rate in Africa, those numbers will drop to around 2. Excuse me for being skeptical, but I suspect those fertility rates won't drop until their economies improve, and we are a LONG way off from that. Personally, rather than Chinese style state imposed limits, and other draconian rules, I would recommend Depo shots for any who wish to receive government aid, regardless of what country they are in. If you can't afford to feed yourself, you can't breed, period. When your situation improves, have at it. I'd personally have 13. After all, Abraham did wonders with 12. By the way, I found it interesting to see the Palestinian territories mixed in with all those African nations on near the top of the fertility chart.
Or human abuse without recourse. Human rights within the human community is not the same as human rights over all other creatures is a right at all but their failings. Those three religions have never solved anything and have not a clue why they even exist - a good X but agree the statement does not offer an answer any more than than the people they represent.
OK. I got that already. I asked "why not?". how is it philosophically different than enforcing environment-friendly laws or income taxes? And in case you think of bringing the "its a human right" stuff again: it is not. 1 2 or 3 is a human right. 10 is where abuse of a right becomes a crime, especially if he can not educate them, because then each will have 10 children himself, and so on. well said. so you agree that there is a population limit. Wise thing to do next is to do our best not to get there - its much better than getting there and then starting to think what to do. I'm not wearing anything, its just my avatar on the DP forum. It represents my ideology and it is not arrogant, certainly not more than wearing a cross necklace, often seen also in real world. With 5.5 children per women, Gaza is No. 1 in the middle east. Despite some emigration and zero immigration, from 1967 to 2005 it grew by a staggering 300%. So much for "humanitarian crisis"....
i remember watching a documentary on discovery channel , it showed how the world was struggling to survive after human populations has reached 11+ billion in future. it showed that major cites likes Newyork ,london etc have become huge slums. families of 10-12 people were living in small condos, water was supplied for only a limited time every day. bottled water cost $10+ for a liter, food shortage and high unemployment rate had led a increase in crime. plague and other diseases which virtually did not exsisted were now common and were major source of death. but after 2 or 3 decades the population has decreased to 4.2 billion and the rivers which has long vanished started flowing again, over all the sititations were back to normal. and according to them it was 2070 or 2080 when this would have happened. my thought- better get rich or pay the price cause we are gonna live longer because of advancement in medical science
If you go to 6.00m he says nothing like any nuclear war could stop the population growth of the 3rd world but its already in the process!! he is also flawed in saying the developed world's people are rich no one if rich only the super rich. Most people don't own their homes / cars, the banks do! Food prices are high, electric bills, gas prices we are given the impression we are rich that's all.
You say it is not a human right, but I say it is. Your opinion has as much credence as mine. Did you know the UN Declaration of Human Rights recognises reproduction as a human right, as do other organisations such as the World Health Organisation. This is, however, not my main point. This is a very complicated issue, as people of mature minds will agree, so why do you think I choose not to agree with you? While stating your opinions on what you feel is the best way to tackle this issue, did you ever stop to think about the actual consequences of the actions? I'll elaborate: what would you do with those who break the 'law' of x children? Would you be ready to name their punishment? Seemingly minor punishments such as fines or welfare revocation can have devastating effects, as do forced abortion and murder, as you'll know. I choose not to give an answer for this problem because I'm mature enough to understand how complicated the situation did. It's naive and frankly immature to give solid answers as if they're the only solutions and have no consequences. I say this because I've yet to see any signs of thought over the latter. I believe over-population is as much a myth as peak oil is. Too many people over the centuries have predicted population limits which we exceeded, so these new theories are nothing new, nor any more correct. Besides all of this, as Obamanation mentioned, my country along with just about all over Western nations, have a negative growth rate. The problem lies with the unindustrialised nations, see the relation? Allow them to become first world countries and I believe their populations will stabilise. Those with vast influence forbid poor countries from becoming like us - through the threat of global warming, resource depletion and other lies - and then cry that the world is becoming over populated.