Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People just refuse to do the right thing and limit themselves to one child per woman. Until our population drops to the point where all can have a decent living (ie, 10% or less of what it now is).
People just refuse to do the right thing and limit themselves to one child per woman. Until our population drops to the point where all can have a decent living (ie, 10% or less of what it now is).
Just go down to the Parenting Forum and see the massive sense of entitlement to breed with no plan on supporting the children in some threads. A poster suggested that in this tough time it's better not to have children if you cannot provide a post high school education. All hell broke loose. Some people's egos are way too caught up in their genitals or their status as "parents".
Just talk to older people in some coastal areas, they will tell you the decline, and in some places completely disappeared, shallow water sea life. Or older people who use to frequently see animals like badgers, coyotes, etc, yet rarely see them now, if ever for some of them unless purposely going out to look for them.
If anyone is a big reader of books written in the 1800's or so (and into the 1900's), you will read about the abundance of wildlife described during the author's description of the settings during various stages of the book. There is one book. One book by a Russian author, Sholokhov if I remember correctly, I remember him describing the settings around, abundant in wildlife as the character was walking by foot, yet I know for a fact in Russia this abundance of wildlife in that area (the Don/Kuban) does not exist anymore.
People just refuse to do the right thing and limit themselves to one child per woman. Until our population drops to the point where all can have a decent living (ie, 10% or less of what it now is).
Excuse me????? Why not one child per person which would be 2 kids per family. The thing is divorce and breakups happen and then everybody thinks they get to start counting all over again. It doesn't work this way. We all know men can have 10000x more kids than women so birth control should be more important for men than women but that will never happen.
Breeding is the single biggest eco-footprint an individual can cause. It basically multiplies the total impact you've made and will make. Most people in the US aren't living off of agriculture anymore. And we're not a developing country, so there's no excuse for having many kids. IMO, 2 kids is the max acceptable.
Maybe if adoption wasn't such a difficult and expensive process, more people would opt to adopt (there's a slogan right there lol) rather than breed.
It doesn't even have to be either or. If you want 2 kids, breed one, adopt the other.
99.9% of all of the species that have ever existed on the planet have gone extinct. Eventually we will probably make the list. It is a part of earth's natural process. WE are a part of earth's natural process.
99.9% of all of the species that have ever existed on the planet have gone extinct. Eventually we will probably make the list. It is a part of earth's natural process. WE are a part of earth's natural process.
Where are the scientific studies to back-up your opinion that you state ever so clearly as a fact?
The industrial revolution is a natural part of the earth's process?
Did mother nature grow claws from the earth and build up all those factories and engines?
You mean, mother nature defecated on herself? It's the woman's fault again??!! What a feminist!
Earth has nothing but rock for 4.54b-3.8b=0.74b years
Lots of species go extinct during our 200k years on earth and even more species go extinct during (3.8b-200k) years pre Homo sapiens time. I would say 99.99999999%
"The more you learn the less you know."
"The less one knows, the more he thinks he knows."
Homo sapiens is nothing but an endanger speciece and could go extinct anytime.
Don't waste our resource to preserve this rock.
Let us spend our resource to spread our genes all over the universe.
Earth has nothing but rock for 4.54b-3.8b=0.74b years
Lots of species go extinct during our 200k years on earth and even more species go extinct during (3.8b-200k) years pre Homo sapiens time. I would say 99.99999999%
"The more you learn the less you know."
"The less one knows, the more he thinks he knows."
Homo sapiens is nothing but an endanger speciece and could go extinct anytime.
Don't waste our resource to preserve this rock. Let us spend our resource to spread our genes all over the universe.
Aside from having no clue what the numbers are supposed to mean, just how do you suggest we seed the stars? With our warp drive spaceships? This "rock" is all we have....at least for the foreseeable future.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
