Quote:

---

"In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation."
-Bilderberger Prince Philip Nazi King of England

"A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."
-Bilderberg billionaire CNN founder Ted Turner

"Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals. We're too many people; that's why we have global warming. Everybody in the world's got to pledge to themselves that one or two children. Communist China just wants to sell us shoes. They're not building landing craft to attack the United States, and Russia wants to be our friends, too. Never mind all those Commie nukes targeted at US. It's been a long time since anybody caught me saying something stupid."
-Ted Turner

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratenews:
Western and Commie govts genocided 300-million sheeple in the 20th Century.

Genocide of foreign nations is merely a psyop diversion from the real genocide agenda.

Each govt is in charge of genociding their own citizens. SCOTUS legalized genicide with Roe v Wade, resulting in 50-million aborticides in USA in just 40 years, to make room for 50 million illegal alien Catholicss banned from birth control by Vatican Nation and gay pedophile King Pope.

The EU was founded by Nazis 50 years ago, to accomplish exactly what Adolf Hitler Shicklegruber Rothschild wanted...

Obama just annexed 60-million acres for United Nations UNESCO Biosphere Reserve genocide program, which bans all sheeple from National Parks.

Actually, there's plenty of land, food, water and gas for billions more people.

But they would compete with the inbred elite, and They can't allow that to happen.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Creating of world government at expense of suffering bad, I agree. Fortunately, I don't think the media has started pushing the idea of joining the SPP on the people yet, because I haven't heard much about it.

Although I think people should restrict travel in National Parks and Monuments. And I mean in the goddamn common sense way. As someone who likes to spend my vacations in National Forests, Wilderness Areas, on BLM lands, and in National Parks bushwhacking with a backback, I can safely say there has been no acre of the united states that doesn't have litter or ATV tracks on it. ._.

And even though I know we pay farmers for fallow fields and to let some of their crops rot to create more demand, out west I see barbed wire fences everywhere and it makes me sad. I don't want to see development over every square inch of earth just to sustain a gigantic unfathomable population.

The more people there are, the less we know our neighbors, and the more isolated we all become. So I still think overpopulation could be a problem.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

This thread, as should most of those posted by PN, belongs in Troll Country.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by badkarma00:

I don't know much about the UNESCO thing, but I did find this article from 2005 which I found particularly interesting. Thought I'd share it.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/tabor/050330

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

I would like to say space travel, but I know Pirate News thinks it's impossible and I don't want to start that up again... >_>

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratenews:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by badkarma00:

I don't know much about the UNESCO thing, but I did find this article from 2005 which I found particularly interesting. Thought I'd share it.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/tabor/050330

---

Every National Park has a big sign at the entrance saying "International Biosphere Reserve", which censors "United Nations".



UNESCO Biosphere Reserves owned by United Nations Corporation of 55-nation British Commonwealth Empire
www.nature.nps.gov/globalconservation/biosphere.cfm
www.unesco.org/mabdb/mab-cont/country.asp?code=USA
http://portal.unesco.org/science/en/ev.php-URL_ID=4793&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC
&URL_SECTION=201.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNESCO_Biosphere_Reserve

Director of US National Park Service is a British citizen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Bomar

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by badkarma00:



The entrance to SHiloh doesnt' have that, PN, but it's a military park, so maybe that's why.

At least it didn't have one last time I was there. It could now, I guess.

---

Quote:

---

Well, space travel isn't impossible, but where could we go?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Quote:

---

Well, space travel isn't impossible, but where could we go?

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581_d

Via Stellarum!

-F

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
...Fortunately, I don't think the media has started pushing the idea of joining the SPP on the people yet, because I haven't heard much about it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
I mean, it even seems like putting limits on the number of children a couple can have will eventually lead to sterilization, breeding, or eugenics programs.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
That's called a slippery slope, it's a logical fallacy. There's no reasoning to say that giving incentives to couples to have less children, or even making laws for the maximum number of children a couple can have, will lead inexorably to eugenics, or the over population "Final Solution".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Actually, it's not, it's called "objective assessment."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
How exactly are you going to determine who gets to have children? And, how are you going to enforce that?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Or, if you promote everyone only having one child, would you allow some parents to discard some of their attempts and try again until they get what they want? Or perhaps... What the government wants?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Frem, I actually jumped up and down and sent links to everyone I know when we found Gliese 581 c.

That candidate sounds even better. Man, that solar system sounds great! Two planets that are probably in the inhabitable zone.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:


OR, the American media isn't covering it. Which is probably bad for Americans.

But I confess, my dose of news generally consists of the most prominent world news items being talked about on the internet or what I happen to overhear...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
My questions were mostly intended to ask you what your solutions would be, as I know I might have overlooked some, but I confess they might have been intended to be a bit leading.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
So my argument is, any way you chose to implement population control is going to carry with it some inherent selection process, either of the parents, or of the children. From that, this is where my claim that population control inevitably will lead to eugenics comes from. Perhaps it's an indirect style, perhaps it's unintended, but I think population control is the slippery slope, and NOT my argument.

---

Quote:

---

In the classical form, the arguer suggests that making a move in a particular direction starts something on a path down a "slippery slope". Having started down the metaphorical slope, it will continue to slide in the same direction

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Or maybe they're pulsing in sets, a certain number of times? Prime numbers generally are considered by our mathematicians an impossible pattern for anyone to miss, but that would require the other civilization to have a concept of counting. Kind of an assumption, isn't it?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
After all, for about I'd say 1700 years of human history, people were inventing primarily without the use of mathematics OR science.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Although... Do I really HAVE to meet the aliens if they're religious fanatics? We have enough of those on earth. :(

---

Quote:

---

...or we'll meet aliens that are about the same level of Australopithecus.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

...or we'll meet aliens that are about the same level of Australopithecus.

---

Or the level of AuRaptorpithecus, which is about the same thing... AuRaptorpithecus is decidedly more troll-like in appearance and mannerism, though.



(I couldn't resist).

---

Quote:

---

Saying that population control is a slippery slope, is a slippery slope argument.

---

Quote:

---

Further I'd contend that you've presented only one form of non-eugenic population control, that is option one. The other three are all forms of eugenics, or ethnic cleansing, depending on the assumed criteria for deciding who may and who may not procreate. To me using examples of eugenics, calling it population growth control and then using that to prove population growth control always leads to eugenics is somewhat of a misnomer, a red herring.

---

Quote:

---

If the option were the complete extinction of the human race, in a global form of Easter Island, or punitive population control measures, I would pick the survival of the species. And it can happen, beyond the example of Easter Island, there's evidence that the population of the Mayan Civilisation, that went into decline in the 8th-9th centuries, exceeded their environments carrying capacity. I would prefer a less punitive and dangerous scheme to be implemented prior to a time when more dire measures are necessary.

---

Quote:

---

In other words, population growth control, of which option one that you present, legally requiring people to have no more than one child, is perhaps the most punitive. another option would include looking at it from the other angle, giving tax breaks or some other 'reward' for people who have less than two children. I'd also note that enforcing or encouraging two children per family would actually lead to decreasing population levels, albeit at a slower rate than one child policies (some people won't have children, some people might have one, people die before having children etc).

---

Quote:

---

In fact my preferred method would be to encourage two child families. That way the future of the family line isn't focused on one individual (which causes various problems in China). Two child families would also help mitigate the problems of ageing populations, where the average age is skewed to those reaching the end of life. The obvious consequence (which would logically follow quickly from single child policies) is that there wouldn't be enough people of working age to pay the pensions of those who have retired (amongst other things). Really the only way I can see of reducing population and dealing with these issues without some sort of enforced internment of pensioners or the "Logan Solution".

---

Quote:

---

I see no way that requiring couples to have no more than a certain number of children can possibly inexorably lead to an active eugenics policy. Not without a bunch of discrete steps in-between that don't necessarily follow, and can be stopped at any point.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

No civilisation in Human history is devoid of mathematics. In fact some form of mathematics seems to be required for the social organisation of civilisation, which in-turn is required for the organisation of labour required for technological advancement. The Egyptians couldn't have built the pyramids without mathematics, and a laser is several magnitudes more difficult.

---

Quote:

---

A Laser isn't simply focused light. It's Light created to be highly coherent, the engineering requirements simply aren't possibly by cobbling it all together. Things have to be precise, how do you do that without mathematics? Without maths, you can't even measure the materials.

---

Quote:

---

Well, it's highly unlikely we'll meet any alien species within a factor of our own development. The term I've heard is angels or apes, that is we'll meet aliens so advanced they're beyond our ability to recognise them as a technological species, or we'll meet aliens that are about the same level of Australopithecus.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Perhaps. I'd like to think this is a case where the analogy isn't fallacious.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
A red herring would be if I inexplicably brought up crepes and started ranting about them and somehow tied them into my argument, but I understand you're saying that there's an issue in my argument that doesn't agree with you and you're trying to pinpoint it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
And here's the one we disagree on, whether limiting the number of children per family is eugenics or not. I think as technology improves, it will become increasingly tempting for a family to pick and choose their children. This may not even be a bad thing, because childhood birth defects and genetic disorders truly are tragic. But on the other hand, it's entering territory that's a bit shady for my tastes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Although like I said, I'm not sure any limit would really make that temptation disappear.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Economic incentives, or punishments, I can't help but doubt how effective they would be. Surely any reward or fine would be a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of actually raising a child. If a family truly wanted to more than the encouraged limit of children, this would be no real discouragement in my view.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
The way you phrase this makes me wary that this is a solution after all. I can't find anything on the Logan Solution on wikipedia, could you elaborate?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
This thread, as should most of those posted by PN, belongs in Troll Country.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Maybe they don't know the meaning of organization (I've known people like that, come to think of it).

---

Quote:

---

Maybe they have a cultural inclination for assymetry, and the symmetry they discovered to create the series of focusing lenses for a laser is a relatively new thing, and they still kind of just "eyeball" everything? In fact, maybe they have far better vision than we or our instruments do, and can see minute measurement differences without having to have a concept for it.

---

Quote:

---

You can't "create" light. It's energy. You can emit it...

---

Quote:

---

True enough. I just think there may be more developmental paths to our current stage than just the human one.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
See the laws of thermodynamics. Or E=MC^2 for that matter.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
E= mc^2 is a conversion, not creating energy.

If you get into quantum mechanics you can get weird things like virtual particles and virtual energy appearing and disappearing, but classical physics and relativity don't allow you to create energy.

---

Quote:

---

1. to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.

---

Quote:

---

I know I'm grasping at straws, but I'm HUMAN. How can I predict every form that life might take or the developmental path of a species at a similar technological level?

---

Quote:

---

All I'm saying is that our perspective, and indeed, even possibly our abilities, are very limited, and that I don't think we should use our requirements as an absolute determinant for other intelligent life. I think it might be a mistake even to base our expectations on carbon or water-based.

---

Quote:

---

(I'd also argue that humans aren't very well adapted to their environment, they just happened to evolve an ability that gave them a huge advantage over the species they cohabited with. But that's another argument)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Designer babies could be considered eugenics, couldn't they? They're designed to have "good genes" as well as their phenotype, they at least meet the etymological definition.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Basically I've been arguing here that restricting everyone's children would inadvertently result in selection.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Given the necessary technology, I believe people WOULD be likely to design their children if they could only have a limited number.

---

Quote:

---

And I also think a limitation would introduce a stressor where people might be more likely to turn to a designer baby if they were having trouble with a more natural process.

---

Quote:

---

As for a small incentive making a difference, I think it would depend on what family is getting the benefit. A poor family would have more to gain than a rich family. That might seem like a good thing, limiting the children of poor families, but it kind of brings up that issue I mentioned before of selecting towards the richer, more powerful families.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

Quote:

---

Saying that population control is a slippery slope, is a slippery slope argument.

---

Perhaps. I'd like to think this is a case where the analogy isn't fallacious. I've tried to outline reasonable scenarios in which population control might be expected to lead to eugenics... Which generally a slippery slope argument doesn't do. A slippery slope argument tries to argue that one misstep will lead to increasingly unreasonable missteps, and that is why the initial step must be avoided. It could be that characterizing my argument as a slippery slope in the first place was just an indication of disseparate viewpoints on what is reasonable and what is not.

Quote:

---

Further I'd contend that you've presented only one form of non-eugenic population control, that is option one. The other three are all forms of eugenics, or ethnic cleansing, depending on the assumed criteria for deciding who may and who may not procreate. To me using examples of eugenics, calling it population growth control and then using that to prove population growth control always leads to eugenics is somewhat of a misnomer, a red herring.

---

Then we agree that the other three I presented are eugenics... Although I was trying to say the first one is a form of eugenics as well. Hmm. Oh well. But it seems like that's the main point on which we disagree, so I'll focus my efforts there.

A red herring would be if I inexplicably brought up crepes and started ranting about them and somehow tied them into my argument, but I understand you're saying that there's an issue in my argument that doesn't agree with you and you're trying to pinpoint it. Incomplete representation, maybe? I've never claimed that there aren't others, only that those are the four I can think of. Can you think of any others? My impression of the rest of your post (which I will address subsequently) is that you're looking most at the first option I presented.

Quote:

---

If the option were the complete extinction of the human race, in a global form of Easter Island, or punitive population control measures, I would pick the survival of the species. And it can happen, beyond the example of Easter Island, there's evidence that the population of the Mayan Civilisation, that went into decline in the 8th-9th centuries, exceeded their environments carrying capacity. I would prefer a less punitive and dangerous scheme to be implemented prior to a time when more dire measures are necessary.

---

Oh, I agree, an ETHICAL form of population control is NECESSARY. I just can't figure out how we can DO it.

Quote:

---

In other words, population growth control, of which option one that you present, legally requiring people to have no more than one child, is perhaps the most punitive. another option would include looking at it from the other angle, giving tax breaks or some other 'reward' for people who have less than two children. I'd also note that enforcing or encouraging two children per family would actually lead to decreasing population levels, albeit at a slower rate than one child policies (some people won't have children, some people might have one, people die before having children etc).

---

And here's the one we disagree on, whether limiting the number of children per family is eugenics or not. I think as technology improves, it will become increasingly tempting for a family to pick and choose their children. This may not even be a bad thing, because childhood birth defects and genetic disorders truly are tragic. But on the other hand, it's entering territory that's a bit shady for my tastes.

A good point though on how two children would still be a population decline. It would make the selection temptation LESS. Although like I said, I'm not sure any limit would really make that temptation disappear.

Economic incentives, or punishments, I can't help but doubt how effective they would be. Surely any reward or fine would be a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of actually raising a child. If a family truly wanted to more than the encouraged limit of children, this would be no real discouragement in my view.

And isn't this also sort of turning the concept of welfare on its head? What happens to the families who have lots of children they can't support? You can't tax them more, they can't pay. The foster care system is flooded, and I don't know about Britain, but over here in America, people get really touchy about the state taking away kids from their parents.

Quote:

---

In fact my preferred method would be to encourage two child families. That way the future of the family line isn't focused on one individual (which causes various problems in China). Two child families would also help mitigate the problems of ageing populations, where the average age is skewed to those reaching the end of life. The obvious consequence (which would logically follow quickly from single child policies) is that there wouldn't be enough people of working age to pay the pensions of those who have retired (amongst other things). Really the only way I can see of reducing population and dealing with these issues without some sort of enforced internment of pensioners or the "Logan Solution".

---

The way you phrase this makes me wary that this is a solution after all. I can't find anything on the Logan Solution on wikipedia, could you elaborate?

Quote:

---

I see no way that requiring couples to have no more than a certain number of children can possibly inexorably lead to an active eugenics policy. Not without a bunch of discrete steps in-between that don't necessarily follow, and can be stopped at any point.

---

Not active, perhaps. Although I'm not so sure the process WOULD be stopped, if things ever went that way, because of interests governments might have in their population.

---