|
Post by trollhunterx on Sept 8, 2010 9:16:37 GMT 1
What would be the most effective way to reduce world population short of imposed sanctions? There is no way to reduce world population that wouldn't be regarded as an infringement of human rights (except for war, maybe. No-one ever seems to fret over the human rights angle of mass slaughter). On a technical note, though, it's obvious that women need to be targeted. If you have one man and nine women on an island, all nine women can theoretically become pregnant at once. Reverse the ratio, and only one pregnancy at a time will follow. That's why the infanticide of female babies was so popular a custom in India and other cultures in the past. Sterilising women is another option. Any way you look at it, women get the shitty end of the stick, but that that's because our breeding strategy is suitable for the stone-age, but not modern living. I wonder if the slasher movie is an unconscious reaction to this 'threat' of fertility from young women (with maximum child-bearing potential), or are they inspired by actual 'rippers', also responding to the 'threat', in their deranged fashion?
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 8, 2010 9:41:45 GMT 1
......, but that that's because our breeding strategy is suitable for the stone-age, but not modern living. What sort of Newspeak gibberish is this? A 'breeding strategy' indeed! Sounds like a Goebbels Ministry headline.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 8, 2010 9:43:19 GMT 1
This sounds good in theory but how stable would such an arrangement prove to be in a world of unpredictable economic trends? You are asking governments to make financial guarantees over the course of a lifetime, which seems problematic to me.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 8, 2010 9:56:39 GMT 1
Population policy HAS to be long term doesn't it, abacus?
Seems to me that population reduction is one of the most important policies any state could pursue. You're not denying it is necessary, are you?
The state has been providing pensions for the elderly for over a century now. It can easily make extra provision for those who are voluntarily childless. It can also provide an extra tax allowance to people who remain childless to age thirty.
These are all within the scope of our existing tax/benefits system.
It can also make education free to those who undertake to remain childless.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 8, 2010 10:00:34 GMT 1
We do have contraception nowadays Joe.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 8, 2010 10:06:16 GMT 1
"There is no way to reduce world population that wouldn't be regarded as an infringement of human rights" stated Joe K in reply 15.
Precisely the sort of mindless generalisation one would expect from Friends of the Earth and a self-styled Trollhunter. I think we get the idea of what mindset we are dealing with. Watch a lot of horror movies do we and sci-fi explorations of ghastly "alternative futures", Joe K?
Simplistic mental rigidity of the first order, male variety, too. Does JoeK have a wife? Does he know how women THINK?
There are many things States can do to encourage people to conform with the desired policy without infringing anyone's "human rights". I have outlined some of them them above.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 8, 2010 10:13:39 GMT 1
Of course not but unless the financial inducements are enough to persuade people to stop, or at least limit breeding, it won't work. The long term benefits of having children are powerful since they can provide a family support system in times of hardship and later on when parents become old and and infirmed. You also have to consider the attitude of various ethnic minorities towards breeding practices who have migrated to various parts of the world who may hold religious attitudes about family size.
|
|
|
Post by trollhunterx on Sept 8, 2010 10:48:22 GMT 1
......, but that that's because our breeding strategy is suitable for the stone-age, but not modern living. What sort of Newspeak gibberish is this? A 'breeding strategy' indeed! Sounds like a Goebbels Ministry headline. trollhunterx.webs.com/thefatesofnationsp1.htm, since you ask. Props for the Nazi jibe.
|
|
|
Post by trollhunterx on Sept 8, 2010 10:52:46 GMT 1
We do have contraception nowadays Joe. I'll amend that to 'only one pregnancy at a time can follow', then. This is an example of a 'worst-case scenario', assuming that no birth control is being practised (although reality is bad enough).
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 8, 2010 10:58:19 GMT 1
havelock, www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Fall02/DDT.htmlEvery claim on the net has a counterclaim. I don't have enough personal experience to know what to believe. Except that I have firm personal experience of eco-propaganda and many examples of their lies so I tend to treat their "research" with a pinch of salt. Surely a reasonable position?
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 8, 2010 11:06:29 GMT 1
havelock, www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Fall02/DDT.htmlEvery claim on the net has a counterclaim. I don't have enough personal experience to know what to believe. Except that I have firm personal experience of eco-propaganda and many examples of their lies so I tend to treat their "research" with a pinch of salt. Surely a reasonable position? I chose to give a quote from a site that was discussing evolution rather than to the researchers who found that mosquitoes were resistant to avoid the 'taint' of green bias. The paper you link to does not provide any evidence to support the claim that mosquitoes do not develop resitance to DDT. I could link to countless science papers that do (but as you disbelieve science papers, I haven't bothered). These scientist don't have an axe to grind against DDT manufacturers. The 'loony left' type of scientists would want DDT to be given to developing countries for free if it was effective. They would be demanding that the capitalist west include this as part of the aid packages that they clamour for. Or is this another conspiracy?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 8, 2010 11:23:13 GMT 1
I'm not interested in conspiracy. I'm interested in the truth. I have no time for those that hide, pervert and subvert the truth. I have seen enough of this from the environmental pressure groups, so influencial in the IPCC, to reject their assertions.
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 8, 2010 11:31:04 GMT 1
I'm not interested in conspiracy. I'm interested in the truth. Then have a go at some of the science papers that discuss the resistance of mosquitoes to DDT. There are 2,490 reports listed here: scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=ddt+mosquito+resistance&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=2007&as_vis=1Here's an abstract from one published in 1975 "Larvicide tests were conducted on five species of mosquitoes, each of which had one or more DDT-resistant strains. The high potencies of DDT and, to a large degree, of DDD were completely lost by resistance. Other compounds were affected in different degrees according to the resistance mechanisms present, as indicated by resistance spectra and the effects of synergists. DDT-resistant strains of Culex pipiens fatigans Wied., Anopheles quadrimaculatus Say and A. stephensi List, showed highly specific resistance to DDT, probably dependent on a dehydrochlorination mechanism. DDT-resistance in Aedes aegypti (L.) and A. gambiae was also high, but there was definite evidence of cross-resistance to biodegradable DDT-analogues (about ×4 and ×10, respectively). This low-level, but definite, cross-resistance extended to a number of other compounds, notably pyrethroids, insect development inhibitors, amines, etc. The presence of synergistic action by piperonyl butoxide suggested that this depended on a microsomal oxidation system. Isotopically labelled (14C) DDT and malathion were used to study pick-up and penetration of these insecticides by larvae of normal and resistant Ae. aegypti. Both the actual and the percentage penetration of DDT were greater in the resistant than in the normal strain. Whatever the reason for this, it disposes of the possibility of reduced pick-up and penetration as a factor in DDT-resistance. With malathion, the percentage penetration was always higher in the susceptible strain than in the resistant one, though in some cases the actual amount was less." journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=2377028 These are not eco-warriors, just biologists doing interesting work.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 8, 2010 12:29:09 GMT 1
I'm not interested in conspiracy. I'm interested in the truth. Unfortunately the rest of us can see that you 'truth' has to fit your politics whether it is actually true or not.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 8, 2010 13:08:55 GMT 1
The eco-hippies did better than taxing mossie nets, they got DDT banned. Estimated body count - 2 million per year. Marvellous. Those that have looked into this urban myth know that mosquitoes were becoming immune to DDT long before it was banned.That may be an over simplification, it's use was ceased in Sri Lanka [Ceylon] and when it was resumed, the mozzies had developed resistance. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Overall_effectiveness_of_DDT_against_malaria" ".....Ecuador increased its use of DDT and resulted in a 61% reduction in malaria rates, while each of the other countries that gradually decreased its DDT use had large increase in malaria rates............" People who suffer from malaria usually don't get a chance to die of some other disease. StuartG
|
|