Yes, but those measures don't include foreign occupation.
Frightening Reports From South of the Saharan
johnbrandt wrote: It's a whole weird mindset going on, from cradle to grave, that the powerful rule (and make the rules), that men get the last say in everything, and women are just a possession. Educating women that it isn't like that in other countries, and all you will probably do is create an environment where women will stand up to the menfolk, with obvious consequences.
Even simpler, we should just kill half the women. That will reduce the birthrate by half. If they get recalcitrant, we can just kill more of them till they get the message.
MacIver wrote:Don't have time to read the article right now UM, but I have something to chuck in anyway...
From reports and stats that I've seen the moment a female moves from rural area to a urban one the number of hypothetical babies she'll have drops significantly. I'm just wondering if these projections include this fact? Or have they calculated them without taking into account the increased urbanisation of Africa?
UtilityMonster wrote:I would like to hear proposals on how to deal with this problem. My initial reaction is quadruple spending on population control measures being taken in Africa. Provide pamphlets about the dangers of having too many children, the benefits of birth control, etc. Make condoms available in every fucking building - let there be no excuse for not using them. Provide free birth control pills to any woman who wants one. Fund massive education centers that are open to the public and have constant lectures going about reducing birthrates. Fund massive advertising campaigns that flat out call people with a lot of children irresponsible - billboards, radio/tv ads, newspaper ads.
Many have blamed the problem on "cultural differences." Well, I suggest the government implement actual population control measures. Tax couples for every single child. Every single damn one, starting with the first. If governments refuse to take action, I think UN occupation and governance is called for. Mandatory abortions might even be necessary.
Emmeline wrote:According to stats I've seen (mainly from Hans Rosling) a key factor in reducing family numbers is increasing child survival rates. Other key factors are of course better education and availability of contraception.
Wiðercora wrote:Many have blamed the problem on "cultural differences." Well, I suggest the government implement actual population control measures. Tax couples for every single child. Every single damn one, starting with the first. If governments refuse to take action, I think UN occupation and governance is called for. Mandatory abortions might even be necessary.
I'm sure that will go down well.
My fucking god. I thought there was a consensus that people dying needlessly is bad.
Horizon - Why Most of Us Need To Die - Part 1 of 6
UndercoverElephant wrote:Emmeline wrote:According to stats I've seen (mainly from Hans Rosling) a key factor in reducing family numbers is increasing child survival rates. Other key factors are of course better education and availability of contraception.
Right. So we solve an IMMEDIATE overpopulation problem by trying to reduce infant mortality?
I'm struggling with the logic here.
UndercoverElephant wrote:We have to accept basic fact #1: THERE ARE ALREADY TOO MANY HUMANS ON THIS PLANET.
MacIver wrote:I used to be really worried about overpopulation. But now I think it may not be as big a problem as I once did. The real problem is over-consumption.
Many of today’s most-respected thinkers, from Stephen Hawking to David Attenborough, argue that our efforts to fight climate change and other environmental perils will all fail unless we “do something” about population growth. In the Universe in a Nutshell, Hawking declares that, “in the last 200 years, population growth has become exponential… The world population doubles every forty years.”
But this is nonsense. For a start, there is no exponential growth. In fact, population growth is slowing. For more than three decades now, the average number of babies being born to women in most of the world has been in decline. Globally, women today have half as many babies as their mothers did, mostly out of choice. They are doing it for their own good, the good of their families, and, if it helps the planet too, then so much the better.
Here are the numbers. Forty years ago, the average woman had between five and six kids. Now she has 2.6. This is getting close to the replacement level which, allowing for girls who don’t make it to adulthood, is around 2.3. As I show in my new book, Peoplequake, half the world already has a fertility rate below the long-term replacement level. That includes all of Europe, much of the Caribbean and the far east from Japan to Vietnam and Thailand, Australia, Canada, Sri Lanka, Turkey, Algeria, Kazakhstan, and Tunisia.
AndreD wrote:The best option would be to withdraw all aid to Africa and let natural selection have its way.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests