From http://www.alternet.org/story/39920/

How Many People Is Too Many?

"Everyone from anti-contraception Christians to zero-population-growth advocates is using the U.S's looming 300-million mark to advance their agenda.

By mid-October of this year, the world's third most populous nation will hit 300 million inhabitants. And thanks to America's burgeoning fertility rate, we will keep moving briskly onward, hitting 400 million in less than 40 years, by Census Bureau projections."

Brian Dixon, Population Connection's director of government relations, told me the group will try to take advantage of the publicity surrounding the 300 million mark to advance its congressional agenda. Today, that consists mostly of rearguard actions to protect existing reproductive rights and resist what Dixon calls "the war on sex information."

He said that when people don't have the means and information to control their fertility, the results are obvious: "Just here in the D.C. area where we work, you can't go a week without seeing evidence of overpopulation in the press: choked highways, crowded classrooms. It's our job to make it clear that we have to maintain not only living space but also lots of forests, farms, wetlands, etc."

Dixon cited research showing that one-third of all pregnancies in this country are unintended. "And our teen pregnancy rate is almost twice that of the next-highest industrialized nation. Yet we're wasting hundreds of millions on abstinence programs that have been shown never to work, and in fact can be quite harmful."

He doesn't believe abstinence proponents are really interested in preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases: "They want to punish people who act, in their view, immorally. You got pregnant? It's because you behaved badly. You got an STD? You should've thought about that before you had sex. They want bad outcomes."

In its 2005 update, the Oakland-based think tank Redefining Progress estimated that this nation's staggering level of consumption and waste generation requires a lot more than standing room for each person. The average American's "ecological footprint" -- the theoretical area required to supply everything a person consumes and to deal with the aftermath -- is 269 global acres, almost nine times the footprint of the average person in China and more than 22 times that of the average Indian or Pakistani.

According to their analysis, the ecological footprint of the United States as a nation is bigger than the combined footprints of China, India, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Russia, which together are home to 3 billion people. So from the planet's point of view, the birth of a single American child has the potential impact of 10 births in those countries.

Breed Power!!!

great, that'll put a dent in my job search...wait does that include part Irish or only full blooded Irish?

HailTheLeaf said:


Part Irish will still suffice to be considered Irish.
Only Native Americans have to prove their Native blood quantum is of a certain amount to actually be considered Native American. Although mine is around 1/8 I would have to prove it to the government in order to stake my claim on my native heritage. Until then, I have no claim.

The nature of any dominant species is to proliferate and expand. Not to self-regulate and keep its numbers small. Noone has a right to tell others who can breed and who can't breed or how much to breed. Nature created the womb for a reason, whether that reason is ignored or not.

The issue is really one of our population expansion not matching our technological means to expand (beyond our planet), because we are constantly undermined by Flat Earth Society religious extremist retards. So much easier to fuck than to think. Worms chewing the apple from within. Every time a positive technological advance is halted (cloning, etc) we are contributing to the eventual collapse of our species.

The 'biological footprint' thing is very interesting, though.

DrinkHardThrashHard said:

It is against the nature of any species to dominate and control entire populations of other species, yet we have government agancies going around thinking they have the right to control several species of animals, (including deer, wolves, bears, cats, dogs), when clearly any inter-species problems are caused by our own over-population and infringment upon the habitat of other animals. If the population of any species on earth should be controled, it should be our own, because our species is causing these problems. We also have the means by which to control our population, birth control. As for the religious extremist retards, yeah, they really aren't helping.

i think you should have a license to breed. theres way too many stupid people around

Well, there are many species who dominate and control other species, but they do it through sheer violence, for food or self defense (like when they realize their territory is being encroached upon). We don't always do it just for food, and that is where our debauchery lies.

I'm not sure the human population of Earth will fall under some centralized control for quite some time, but, provided people keep squabbling in the sandbox over their skin pigments and imaginary Overlords in the Sky, instead of looking towards the future and positive progress beyond themselves and their short lives in the grand scheme of things, it's likely that worldwide birth control regulations could come into effect within decades.

ct borderpatrol said:

Man, that would be like The Handmaid's Tail all over again.