Proliferation is the issue, not Iraq

[TerraMex]

>"We're not animals, and we're not fatalists and we're
>not controlled by impulses"
>oh my, 3 assertions = 3 errors

Maybe i should have been more specific on that. I was trying to say that we are not irracional animals, mainly impulse driven . Sure you have primary impulses like eat, or sleep but you dont automaticaly jump on the first woman that gives you a hard-on. You restrain yourself, and your impulses from doing so. It's a direct control over them. Being racional gives us that type of control. Just because you dont like your neighbour doesnt mean you kill him on the spot. Even if you'd like to.

Those are the points i was trying to make, dont know if i'm getting them across..?

>we certainly ARE animals, I submit Africa as the
>example exemplar

I'm not reaching it.

>anyone not a fatalist is in denial - or immortal

Nope, just taking things a bit more lightly. Maybe a bit more cool headed, i think. Death doesnt scare me, or i think about it too often. I just live my life as i can. So i have to say, i'm not a fatalist.

> to what do you ascribe the success of television if not
>"controlled by impulses" ?

Not reaching either... can you elaborate on that?

> we continue to breed like stupid fu*king rabbits

Most of the population growth is not particulary on the "civilized" countrys. A grea deal is located in african countrys and asian countrys. Some European countrys even have stagnat growth , wich is no good. Having an aged population weights on the social services of the country and also on the working force.

I do agree there's a need for a plan to control the general populational growth, it's one of the world's biggest problems.

>gonna have to ACT

But i agree, action is necessary. However it doesnt mean it has to be "military" action or something of some sort. Just because there is a diplomatic, political or economical solution implemented (even if its longer, or seems ) doesnt mean it is not "acting". Again, I say it can be military action, but i feel it is a last resort only (as stated above). When its called for. Not before. The problem is to say "when".

[winewood]

I do agree there's a need for a plan to control the general populational growth, it's one of the world's biggest problems.

Whenever I see somone who sees life as one of the biggest problems on our planet, I see someone who has been fooled and duped into the most abombinable mindsets. How can you speak on solutions when life is something that needs 'correcting'? There is plenty of land, food, and happiness left in this world to be spread out. It just is left to the people and those governing to keep from denying it from themselves and others around them.

Genoicide works either in small gradual steps or larger more immediate. To a patient enemy there is no difference. Through the UN World Health Organization or China, they have included a sterilization solution into the 'immunizations' given to the 3rd world countries and thier own polpulace. They do not tell the poplulace what they are doing, because they are doing the 'humane' thing. To me this is a crime against humanity, and it can only happen when somone places themselves as ultimate governor over the people who are considered "beneath" the organization that serves. I fear the UN's intellect. I fear any organization that takes my soverignity from me. I detest any government that belives the people are there for the government, and not the government for the people. I wouldn't expect people who deny this freedom to themselves or have been raised in denial to understand.

Edit: To be back on topic. Removing all food isn't the way for easing this crisis, but yielding to irrational threatening tactics isn't the way wither. I believe that N. Korea's leader will do this proliferation regardless of its peoples 'hunger' for food.

[TerraMex]

>sees life as one of the biggest problems on our planet,

No, overpopulation of some areas. You missed the whole point. And i think that was what unregistered was referring to... (he'll correct me if i'm wrong, im sure ).

When thousands die of hunger due to lack of food and resources... birth control is the issue. You dont have enough food to go around, and there's no point in debating it, each passing day the natural resources of the planet keep getting thinner. Even a good productive country is usually a developed country that "offers" alot of help to those 3rd world countrys.

Most of the large populational growth is located in 3rd world countrys that have families up to 10 children, and cannot support them. It's not about genocide, it's about getting a degree of control in those overpopulated areas. I see that you prefer to have thousands die on a daily basis, than a working birth control program to not only reduce those deaths (and a great deal between the 1-3 years of age) but to being able to support the existing population, wich i must say, it's in a tight spot. It's folly to think there's "enough to go around". There's not, it's not evenly divided (most of it that reaches those countrys is aid related), and it's not going to get much better over time. Who's in denial if you cant see these problems?

These are not for the developed countrys, they have reached a point where the population mainly regulates itself, having one or two children, or even none, due to the faster "pace" of life, and costs. But in 3rd world countrys the things change, specially in Africa and Asia.

Taking China for an example (as you mencioned), they have a strict populational control, because they have to or the country would collapse with an excessive growth. So they have limitations on how many children a couple can have. Wich if recall it correctly, its 4, with special attention to couples that have no more than 2. The state supports those smaller families giving them benefits. Sterilizations only occur after the 4th children. And if you must know, knowing the current and having a good ideia of the near future of the economical, populational and technological situation of China, i cant say i blame them.

Nobody is killing anybody here, they're ensuring that they can support most (yes , most) of the current, and future population by knowing how much it will grow, and acting accordingly. Its being responsible. Its not supposed to be pretty, and nice, but it IS the responsible thing to do to avoid a larger problem in the future.

Of course, there's also the debate about assisting those countrys in developing methods for food production, resource management, etc ... but thats another issue, but equally important.

PS : UN is not a government (see previous post)... and unlike you said, they are working on these issues and reaching valid conclusions.

[winewood]

It's folly to think there's "enough to go around"
AND they are working on these issues and reaching valid conclusions.

If you look at the waste in the world, and expanse of unpopulated areas I believe your argument speculative and argumentative. I share a different opinion.

One mans or entity's valid conclusion is another mans denial of freedom. In fact I don't see most if any of the UN's decisions valid. Any "government like entitity" such as the UN or governement that feels that they are impowered to serilize, provide abortions, or 'reach a valid conclusion' as to how many children someone has withouth consent to that individual is a denial of freedom. It is not up to the UN to deny freedoms or regulate populations, but to provide aid, and promote freedom. Freedom FROM a life of ones choosing, (ie. children) is not freedom at all in my opinion.
I rebuke population birth 'control' from any entity. No one knows better the environments suitability than parents. If they wish to bring a child into the world, it is their choice. It amuses me to see that the same people who support 'right to death' don't give the same support to 'right to life'. None of this conversation relays to the topic of the board, so I won't comment anymore on this.

[TerraMex]

Agreed on the offtopic thing. Last comment on the issue.

The UN doesnt impose , it recommends courses of action to the current problems. It's up to the members to decide if is valid, or not, and if so to implement it or not.

Again, if you read the text carefully you'd understand the "why", and usually that's all i state. I dont give a full personal opinion based on nothing. I dont like the situation where you can force someone to do something she/he doesnt like, but it's living in a glass dome if you think that doesnt happen. It happens all the time, in every country. Your freedom stops where your neighbour's starts, and the state imposes alot of measures , and some i bet you dont agree . And i understand that it can became (and it has in some countrys) a necessity to do so unpopular and invasive measures.

There are problems, looking the other way , and this is something i've been flamed about, and by you, is not really the answer either. There is overpopulation of the area, there is alot of aid going, but the issue remains, too many people for the existing aid and local resources. Then what? Even with a good program of managing and resource exploration (and has been implement , a great part sponsored by several countrys through the UN), the problem is still there, how do you propose to solve it? Let them (and i'll use Unregistered expression, adapted) screw like rabbits ? That's only going to get the problem worse. It's not about freedom, it's about saving lives, and giving a better chance for future generations to live, and live a better live.

There were millions of death due to those problems (famine) in the world in the past years, maintaining a free and uncontrolled populational growth in those areas originated those deaths.

Again, if you take a small time to research, most of the measures relate to families more than 4 children. Hardly a disproporcional measure. They are free to have kids, but not a army of them. Thats the main issue in alot of those countrys, large families with very or no mean of support. And that causes those fatalities . Nobody is killing anybody, the measure is to prevent large families, by putting a limit of children per family. And the countrys that have used the measure , saw it that way. And did it out of need, not badness .

Nobody is questioning the freedom os each individual, but , as stated, due to the problem, is drawing a "line". It's not a perfect world, and those problems should be solved by the best means possible. There are a great number of people in those countrys, governments and institutes developing the best way to deal with those problems, and they have a bit more experience that we do. The rest...well, we can give out opinions, but i dout it'll make a difference .

Take an example, in Africa (Zaire i think) , there are reserves form elephants. But occasionaly the food runs short, and to prevent most of them from die, they kill only a few . But this insures the future of the rest of the population. I dont like, but i understand why it's done. In this case, growth control through limits on the number of children operates as the same principle, giving a better chance for future populations.

In the end, it's not about agreeing with it, it's understanding why it's done , and until a better way comes along, why it's implemented. I rest my case.