Comments on: AGW Today: Having More Then Two Kids Is Irresponsible

By: Adam C. Sieracki

Adam C. Sieracki — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:46:28 +0000

India will tap-out its groundwater within a couple decades. They depend on this for much of their agriculture…and have way too many kids. An NCEAS study predicted that global fish stocks will collapse in a generation, which means that fish-eating nations (rich ones like Japan, poor ones like Mauritania) will come to depend more on cereal imports. Also about this time, we’re expecting another one of the cyclical dustbowls here in the North American prairie wheatlands…which are being converted to housing for immigrants. More ‘climate refugees’ can be expected, as places like the Maldives export their people. Oil and gas aren’t so much running out suddenly as getting more expensive, which imposes costs on food production (ammonium nitrate) and transport. You can imagine what will happen when all that [edited] hits the fan. With India and Pakistan having nuclear weapons (and many Latin American countries having bigger standing armies than Canada), the security implications are pretty scary. Beware the rise of a thirdworld Hitler, Mussolini, or Hirohito. I’m not just fearmongering, because it’s more than just Lebensraum that the bulging developing world needs. The Axis countries thought it would be nice to have more land; these heavilly-armed (with nukes) thirdworld countries have to EAT.

By: kay

kay — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 20:23:59 +0000

The TFR (Total Fertility Rate) for American families in 2006 was 2.06. This means that on average the American family has 2.06 children per household. So, as a median, 2 children per family is already the statistical norm. In my household, I have 2 siblings and my husband has one sibling. For the entire family units (5 families able to produce viable young) , only my husband and I have children (3). In theory, our family should have a combined total of 10 children. So, that leaves room for 7 children to be born to other families. If you want to reduce population, then the goal needs to be 0 population growth.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:09:48 +0000

Possibly the best post ever placed here.

Over population is the hidden(we’re forbidden to talk about because of religious political correctness) threat to the long-term well being of the world. Our country actually subsidizes large families through personal deductions and tax creditss. Encouraging smaller families is a WONDERFUL idea, eliminate governmental tax benefits for families with any more than two children. Larger families actually use more governmental services not less so why should they pay fewer taxes.

At present rates our country’s population will double in thirty years. We will have to cut our carbon emissions in half just to keep the total emissions the same.

The longer we wait the harder it will be to control. The world is already vacuuming every living thing from the sea. Pretty soon the only fresh seafood we’ll be able to order in a restuarant will be krill.

By: Steynian 320 « Free Canuckistan!

Steynian 320 « Free Canuckistan! — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:42:40 +0000

[...] BABIES = EE-E-EVIL! Green Totalitarian Demands Population Control: “Jonathon Porritt wants to place a maximum limit of two children per family to prevent ‘unsustainable’ population growth” …. [...]

By: AirborneVet

AirborneVet — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 20:57:59 +0000

Instead of killing unborn babies, why not (1) return to the era of self-responsibility (i.e. don’t have sex if you don’t want kids) and (2) kill all the adults we don’t like first.

Idea #2 and abortion are both murder, so who do you prosecute for a crime? Afterall, it’s all in the name of saving the planet, right? Kill thousands to save millions. My first kill would be idiots like this guy who claim killing babies saves the planet.

By: Angie

Angie — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 01:00:04 +0000

Shift money from curing illness to funding abortion? Really? Curious how they intend to do that, without blatantly telling SOMEBODY they’re gonna die in order to perpetuate the hoax of global warming.

What we have here is population control on BOTH sides of the nickel: Don’t let them breed AND force them to die from whatever illness they suffer from, many of which are the direct result of “interventions” like misuse of antibiotics (proven to have led to drug-resistant strains of bacteria like MRSA) or cancers caused by food additives that are carcinogenic, among hundreds of others.

Create the disease, release the disease, promise a cure for the disease, then shift funding to aborting the children of (mostly) women who choose wanton selfishness over personal responsibility… I’m impressed.

By: USpace

USpace — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 22:10:56 +0000

.
What’s next, a two-child rule? Forced abortions like in China? These people are sick, potentially evil.
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
humans’ breath is poison

just one child hurts the world
worse than a jet engine
.

By: MarkJ

MarkJ — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 17:33:07 +0000

Let’s see if these idiots put their money where their mouth is:

Namely, ask them if their proposals apply to:

1. Muslims, Mexicans, and illegal immigrants in general. And, if the answer is yes, if they also favor forcible return of the above to their home countries of origin as well as draconian border-enforcement.

2. How they would enforce their proposals if they actually get them enacted…and people ignore them.

3. How they would deal with a strong–even violent–reaction from people who either have “too many” or “the wrong kinds of” children.