Thursday, May 28, 2009

And Another Thing . . .

Speaking to Gnome's comment on my last post about multi-generational 15 year old mothers: Notice how the so-called "environmentalists" won't touch the population issue with a ten foot pole? Why is that, I wonder?



Discuss . . .

18 comments:

Gnomeself Be True said...

Well, all mine are anyway....

Aunty Belle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aunty Belle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aunty Belle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aunty Belle said...

Okay, that was rude. So I Moved it to the BACK Porch.

But jes' food fer a minute's thought:

Ain't ya heered of Warrne Buffet? Bill Gates? Ted Turner? Rockefeller?

All of 'em have given billions to exterminate humans all over the globe--even here at home. The world is DEpopulatin' so fast it is a crisis of civilzation an' one reason why the economies of the world will fall even further--as the population contracts so will the economies. Of course, the social upheveal is worse. This is why Japanese women carry dolls to work--an much more.

TROLL Y2K said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Boxer said...

I don't suppose you wanted me to discuss why LIFE OF BRIAN wasn't as good as HOLY GRAIL?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

All I can say is, as long as someone wants to be a Mother, can afford to be a Mother, then fine. But if horrifies me to think of children giving birth to children. Why did Palin end up on the cover of PEOPLE magazine?

TROLL Y2K said...

I found using small children in that "comedy" skit to be in really bad taste. Bordering on abusive.

The current and projected population of Troll County does not and will not severely effect the environment, in my judgement.

Don't really care what happens in Bangladesh and other third-world muslib ratholes.

Not sure who you mean by "environmentalists", so I can't really answer that. Most self-described "environmentalists" are know-nothing asshats who's opinions on over-population and every other topic are agenda-driven and devoid of factual back-up.

Gnomeself Be True said...

"Environmentalists" efforts at population control are most effective in developed nations. So, we get ever larger populations of poor/uneducated people in oppressed lands while Western European "native" populations shrink.
Thanks goodness BO is sending money down South so brown people can kill themselves in greater numbers.

NYD said...

I'm kinda with Boxer on this. Besides it's none of my busines if people want to make babies. That is, if they can raise them without government aid and long as they are independant and contributing to society as a whole, I think there is plenty of room for a few more people.

Um... Japanese women do not carry dolls to work

moi said...

Gnome: But of course. You and a bazillion other dudes . . .

Aunty: Well, I'm always up for a bit of hearty debate, especially with someone as articulate and knowledgeable as you are, Aunty.

First of all, I don't have an opinion on whether or not the earth is overpopulated with humans. Nor am I anti-human – I believe that humans are, in fact, NOT a blight on the earth and are as natural a part of it as anything else in the environment. I'm the last person anyone would lump in with Al Gore and his ilk.

My point with the post was to first of all ponder why the environmentalist movement remains so mum on the subject of human population when the simple fact is, we humans are 6 billion strong and predicted to hit 12 billion in 50 years. These folks, so wrapped around the axle about every little thing that could possibly affect the earth's "delicate" balance, nonetheless do not ask an essential question concerning human survival: how in the heck are we going to provide a First World lifestyle to all of these people? I think it is a question that needs to be addressed, because the ultimate environmental concern is not the survival of the polar bear, but the survival of the human species, given an increasing number of folks vying for a finite set of resources. That doesn't make me anti-human. Far from it.

The point of the skit – whether you think it's in bad taste or very pointed satire – is to bring to light the fact that fundamentalist religious groups providing assistance in Third World nations la, la, la, la, la themselves when it comes to the verboten subject of birth control. I was RAISED catholic so I know whereof I speak. The Church's position today remains the same as it ever was: abstinence or the highway. And I think that works against the ultimate survival of the human species.

Boxer: Personally, I prefer Jabberwocky over them all.

Troll: But that's what we adults do, don't we? We use our children to further our political, social, and environmental causes - from anti-abortion demonstrations to Obama rallies. So I don't find the skit in bad taste so much as I find it ironic.

Gnome: I know of no private, non-profit organization that goes into Third World countries – heck, even "blighted" areas of our own country – to provide men and women with information on birth control and options to a life lived rearing children they cannot afford. If you know of one, please let me know. I'd like to donate them some money.

moi said...

NYD: I'm with you. See above comment about what I was getting at.

Big Shamu said...

Never Fear, OCTO-MOM is HERE!!!!

Aunty Belle said...

Oops! No debate intended Moi, Cherie
Jes an invitartion to look deeper at a myth

An ya KNOWS Aunty doan think youse anti human

But the Buffets an Turners are--they do send birth
Control and abortion money worldwide...

As fer the Church, of course it opposes contraception
Since that denies famies to families--but note that
It doan mean have 20kids.

Big topic an it doan fit in a sound bite
But ws declinin an wot be 12 billion...besides
Havrard says earth can support 40 billion

Problem is not finite resources, but despots
Who steal from their own...

And as of 2009 sixty per cent of world
Is middle class...

But I agrees that children ought not have children...or sex .

AL (the ponderous one) GORE said...

I really feel like I should be claiming to have invented something related to this post. But what?

czar said...

[stunned silence]

kmwthay said...

And Now For Something Completely Different: just kidding.

This is a sticky topic and I don't really have much to weigh in. However, my issue about these babies being born to young girls is about the insurance. I mean, how does that workout exactly? If the new mom to be is lucky enough to be on her parents insurance, I wonder if that covers childbirth for the girl. Then for that matter, can the baby be claimed on the grandparents insurance?

I just don't know how that all works. I do know that 60% of the pediatric cases at the hospital I support are indigent care cases. There is our health care program: our tax dollars.

K9 said...

life finds a way. are there too many people or lots of bad policies that affect population? if the bad guys aunty's talking bout dont git r done then the microbes' pandemic will. it'll all work out. i hope.

and after all. all we ever need is hope. (and change) grrrrrherherhahahaha