Teach a man to fish?

[ianben]

I posted a link to this program in lets be honest
which doesnt work in Canada.

In a Horizon special, naturalist Sir David Attenborough investigates whether the world is heading for a population crisis.

In his lengthy career, Sir David has watched the human population more than double from 2.5 billion in 1950 to nearly seven billion. He reflects on the profound effects of this rapid growth, both on humans and the environment.

While much of the projected growth in human population is likely to come from the developing world, it is the lifestyle enjoyed by many in the West that has the most impact on the planet. Some experts claim that in the UK consumers use as much as two and a half times their fair share of Earth's resources.

Sir David examines whether it is the duty of individuals to commit not only to smaller families, but to change the way they live for the sake of humanity and planet Earth

It was a typical Attenbourgh format, presume you have seen his wildlife programs Planet Earth etc, firstly flying round the globe showing the finite quantities of water energy land Mexoco cities increasing difficulty providing drinking watwer for its 20 mill population ,Aral Sea etc Difficulies finding our ever increasing oil demands and its effect on the envioment small mention of global warming. Over fishing of seas mans use of land and effect on biodiversity extinctions etc. Then food production output doubled in west incresed 5 fold in Africa but now static or falling. The increased food production did not feed the hungry in the third world just ment less died of starvation and even more mouths had to be fed as they reproduced. Ruandan masacres where neighbour killed neighbour to the tune 1 million in three months due to land shortage issues. India and Chinas attempts to limit family size by law,there would be 4million more Chinese without one child per couple policy.
The positive effect of education on especially women in the number of children they had down from 10 to 1.5 in India.
They had come up with a figure for the amount of food the earth can produce sustainably for humans and called it a food hectare this would give every person on earth today 2hectares. The average Indian would use 0.8 African 1.5 Chinese 2.1 European 4.4 UK 5.5 N American 9.6.

It was easy to see the world would be a better place if there where fewer people and many other issues would be less significant.

Would you limit your family for the good of the earth?

Would you support compulsion ,laws, or incentives, taxes, to this end?

Will our childrens children pay the price if we are not willing to give up the choice on the number of children we have?

[Choice2U]

If memory serves me correct, much of the western world already has a natality rate below the mortality rate, thus our population is only growing because of immigration. These questions about limiting the numbers in a family, etc. should be directed to the developing world. We're already doing our part!

[ianben]

Watched part of the program again last night.
The Chinese one chid per couple policy had reduced population by 400mllion not 4million more than the entire population of US.

Obviously large third world families would help with numbers but 1 US child uses the same global hectares as 5 Chinese or 10 Indian.

I think if we expect them to participate we must lead by example.

Would one child per couple not be workable?

[ColevilleH2S]

I'm just blue skying here, so bear with me on this.

We already lead by example. North America, can feed it self. I suggest Africa and Asia follow our example..... Oops, well now let me rethink that statement. I'm in the nutrient export business (farmer) so it would be to my advantage if things don't change. May I now suggest that the Chinese should drink more beer and the Indian's eat more Lentils and all will be well on my farm.
OK, maybe with the high costs of shipping my Lentils and Barley overseas maybe a better scenario for me would be a North America with more mouths to feed so I could then sell my wares here and save on freight costs. So with that in mind I absolutely oppose "one family one child" policy. Lets all go forth and multiply!.... well at least in North America, 'cause we can afford too (I wonder why that is?)

[FarmRanger]

As standards of living increase, birthrates have fallen, in the western world at least. Were it not for immigration, our population would be on a sharp decline in Canada. In fact, at current birth rates, we will be quickly outnumbered by recent immigrants.

In Canada, we’ve done more than our share to feed and house the world’s excess population, and frankly, it ticks me off when someone suggests we should be sacrificing our own children and grandchildren because there’s too many people elsewhere in the world.

As far as the one child policy goes, it may work here, (but we can feed ourselves though, so why do we need it?), but will it work in the 3rd world?
When China instituted its one child policy, wasn’t their population in the neighbourhood of an even billion? What is it now, 1.3 billion? As doctor Phil likes to say “How’s that workin’ for ya?”

[parsley]

Thank goodness for at least 2 representative Western Canadian farmers who are obviously not rendered helpless by the climatus C02 warming that is emitted to produce their young.

These two seem to have enough gumption leftover to not only defend their right to procreate, but to actually RAISE their young.

These two Western Canadians have enough oil energy to keep the furnaces running for their young. Yup.

And these two farmers grow enough food for not only their young, but through their gracious acts of kindness and CHARITY, plus income tax deductions, continuously fund children in other parts of the world, where nightly emmissions are neither monitored nor voluntarily suppressed.

It's good to know, that when some foreign central planner has nerve enough to scribble the notation, "one offspring only", in a Western Canadian man's genetic reproductive daybook, the bullshit will be stomped on.

Climate change started that way....imposing a brainwave on the West, for the West to support. Is climax change the next page of this focus?

I was beginning to wonder, after looking at the zero interest in the lentil post, if the Makhdoom's of the world were going to continue to talk on, as well as walk in and continue on with their free rides...unopposed.

2

It's a good sign.

pars