[EnergySpin]

Can we summarize people's opinion on this important question?
Only registered members of the forum please ...
I voted for the last option
Bunch of syntax and errors and mispellings in the options but .. it is my first poll and Firefox is playing hard to get this morning
Domestical should be domestic ... I was going to write something really nasty but then changed my mind, but forgot to change the word

[KiddieKorral]

I look at it this way. Our population is in overshoot. We can reduce our population the easy way (reproductive restrictions) or the hard way (war, disease, etc.). I don't like it, but it has to be done.

[killJOY]

Getting people to limit breeding (not STOP, just LIMIT) is like trying to prevent the green stuff from coming out the back end of a grass-fed cow.

The human brain is simply STUFFED with rationales for reproduction. We can thank evolution for this.

I'm sure if I weren't a fag, I'd be saddled with a few kids, an SUV, and insurmountable debt.

We are in OVERSHOOT. Human breeding should be limited. But it ain't gonna happen.

[Kaare_Mai]

I want an option for 2 children limit! That way the population won't grow, and disease, war, accidents and other things will make the population shrink.

[0mar]

quota systems imo at this point

Highly educated folk or folk that show exceptional qualities are allowed up to 4 children

Average person is allowed two children

Those who contribute little or nothing to society are not allowed to breed.

[Ludi]

"none of the above" People should limit their reproduction to the carrying capacity of their ecosystem, like people have been able to do in other cultures for 100,000 years, before our culture came along and told them that was wrong.

[katkinkate]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '"')none of the above" People should limit their reproduction to the carrying capacity of their ecosystem, like people have been able to do in other cultures for 100,000 years, before our culture came along and told them that was wrong.

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('katkinkate', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '"')none of the above" People should limit their reproduction to the carrying capacity of their ecosystem, like people have been able to do in other cultures for 100,000 years, before our culture came along and told them that was wrong.

[Omnitir]

No restrictions on the number of children parents can have, but serious licensing on being a parent.

Here’s the way I think things should work.

We need to completely change they way society looks at raising children. Being a parent shouldn’t be something people to for some personal fulfilment or a welfare payout (like it is now), but more like an honoured career, held with the utmost respect. People with careers as parents would be held in a similar high regard as other high skilled professions. Becoming a parent needs to be something attainable only by those with the strongest ambition and determination.

To become a parent, you must first spend many years of your life studying how to do so. Then, qualified parents may apply for parenting licenses, which would be a similar process to applying for a high-end job - difficult to succeed at. Once a person is sufficiently trained, qualified and licensed, then they are allowed to have children. Parents are now given a level of support unprecedented in the modern world.

I believe the outcome of this would not only by a controlled and sustainable population, but generations of children being raised properly with all the support and opportunities the modern world can offer. The end result of this would be parents that know what the hell they are doing and do everything possible to raise intelligent well-adjusted children, parents that don’t abuse their power as guardians of future generations, and generations of people that aren’t mostly dickheads. And of course a sustainable world population that would lead to the end of poverty and world hunger.

Essentially, I believe that if humanity learnt to raise future generations properly, instead of the bullshit we carry on with now, then the future would be some kind of utopia.

Given the world we live in, it should not be basic a human right to reproduce. We should have lost that right when we allowed our population to explode.

[LadyRuby]

I vote "None of the Above." I don't go for "It's God's Law" but I also don't think you can stop people from having children.

There's a direct relationship between a woman's level of education and the number of children she has. So educate women instead!!!!!

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('katkinkate', '
')You mean leaving unsupportable babies out in the weather to die of exposure and letting the old folks who can't contribute any more die of starvation and thirst?

[BrownDog]

I just read "The Tragedy of the Commons" by Garrett Hardin, and thought of this thread.
http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/art ... mmons.html

Interestingly, this essay was written in 1968, when population was lower than it is today. He advocates "Mutual Coercion Mutually Agreed Upon" and makes the case that leaving it up to individuals ultimately hurts everyone.

I'm still digesting it, but it seems well written whether you agree or not.

[Ludi]

Mutual coercion, otherwise known as "peer pressure," works much better than laws and programs.

[Prince]

Minority numbers top 100M

Interesting article. I think more telling is the growth between white Americans and their counterparts. Look at the table data, and you'll see the white population has grown 1.6% in 7 years, while the Mexicans and Asians are pumping out Xerox copies, representing ~ 25% increases in the same timeframe.

The ramifications of this in a flat/declining energy market are telling and scary. Politicians don't care, obviously, so long as the economy keeps growing and corporate profits are up. I wonder how such things will pan out when Joe American is competing with Jose Immigrant for the same energy and gas pool in the coming years ahead.

National growth table

[mekrob]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'â')€¢ There are 2.5 million more non-Hispanic Asians since 2000, a 24.4% increase to 12.9 million.

[Chuckmak]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mekrob', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'â')€¢ There are 2.5 million more non-Hispanic Asians since 2000, a 24.4% increase to 12.9 million.

[frankthetank]

I wouldn't want to be a minority in an all white neighborhood when everyone loses their jobs and gas is $7 gallon and Krogers just sold out of their remaining bread.

[undertaker]

Relatively generous welfare directed specifically at non-Whites, section 8 housing and non-White immigration is the Marxist/Jewish plan to dispossess White people of this country.

http://library.flawlesslogic.com/juif.htm

Prof. MacDonald claims that one of the most consistent ways in which Jews have advanced their interests has been to promote pluralism and diversity -- but only for others. Ever since the 19th century, they have led movements that tried to discredit the traditional foundations of Gentile society: patriotism, racial loyalty, the Christian basis for morality, social homogeneity, and sexual restraint. At the same time, within their own communities, and with regard to the state of Israel, they have often supported the very institutions they attack in Gentile society.

Why is this in the interests of Jews? Because the parochial group loyalty characteristic of Jews attracts far less attention in a society that does not have a cohesive racial and cultural core. The Jewish determination not to assimilate fully, which accounts for their survival as a people for thousands for years -- even without a country -- has invariably attracted unpleasant and even murderous scrutiny in nations with well-defined national identities. In Prof. MacDonald's view it is therefore in the interest of Jews to dilute and weaken the identity of any people among whom they live. Jewish identity can flower in safety only when Gentile identity is weak.

Prof. MacDonald quotes a remarkable passage from Charles Silberman: "American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief -- one firmly rooted in history -- that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of American Jews to endorse 'gay rights' and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called 'social' issues."

[killJOY]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')inorities breeding like cockroaches...