Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Irksome Tidbit

I was just listening to a little news blurb, and some egghead environmentalist whack-job just made some big statement that having more then 2 children is environmentally irresponsible. That people that have more than 2 kids are leaving an inexcusably big "carbon footprint" and the government needs to take money from important research for curing disease and put it into making more easily available things like family planning education, contraception, and abortion. You know, it's things like this that make me mad that we decided to stop at two kids (a decision made permanent by a surgery I doubt my husband would be anxious to try to reverse). That makes me so angry that I would immediately start trying for more kids if it were even possible anymore. Hey, someone go make a set of quadruplets for me, okay?

29 comments:

lizS said...

that's the stupidest thing i ever heard. bruce told me he heard on the news or somewhere that the tree huggers are trying to pass a bill to put a tax on cows. that they emit too much greenhouse gases, so every single one must be taxed. IDIOTS! seriously, tax cows?! and more than two kids is too huge a carbon footprint?! that's just about the worst way to view a child i have ever heard. there just aren't bad enough words in our language to call them! does anyone know any italian? or maybe swahili?

Your Favorite, and Mine - Mary said...

I am listening to Glenn Beck as we speak, and apparently there's some environmentalist group trying to get legislation passed limiting the number of children Americans can have to two. Yeah. I see that passing. (heavy sarcasm)

lizS said...

with all the catholics and mormons in this country? lol, not a chance!

timpani76 said...

Why don't we all just move to China where they can force sterilizations on us all? Why are people like this allowed to be given a public voice at all? Can't we practice some selective suppression????

Bruce said...

i dont know if you all noticed or not but we do have a socialist as a prez. he might be willing to back this and sence they have both house and sen, we could be really screws. and mary you could always pretend to be trying to have more kids.

lizS said...

i'm sure jeremy would like that bruce, lol!

theefxman said...

I don't like them TELLING us what to do, and supporting abotion, both bad things.

However that being said I think the world as a whole should voluntarily look at their earning potential vs cost of living and weigh that heavily against the size of a family. I know many people are content to raise their children in poverty and many great people rise from a family that has to struggle.

That being said we are going to run out of room on the planet eventually. Maybe not today but we have to look at the bigger picture. We've been waiting for the end of times for a couple millinium now. There's always the chance we may be waiting a few millinia more.

I don't think we should be told what to do, or should support people taking their own childrens lives after they have been blessed with a child in the womb.

But I think people need to start taking a common sense approach to having kids. It says in the bible to be go forth and multiple. But we are stuck living in satan's domain, he is going to make it as much of a living hell as possible to discourage people.

I think he is doing a good job of that with the economy the way it is, global famine and all the other centuries long pains we have suffered upon ourselves.

If we don't start getting more control over our resources and lives the planet may not outlast the rapture. I don't think we as christians can sit back and be idle about the state of the planet on the faith alone that we won't suffer from the consequences of EVERYONES impact on the world.

When people talk about global impact they think recycling and carbon footprints. That gets people up in arms and defensive.

If you look at it from the perspective of 1+1+1=3 and look at the figures on reproduction based on demographics things don't look so good.

I'm not going to get into the argument over whether or not people of less sense have more children. Nor am I going to get into the argument that smart people should have more than those with less sense to equal things out.

What I am going to argue for is some global common sense on giving our kids a chance at a future by encouraging humans as a race to step the reproduction down a notch as a whole.

If it gets back down to a level where we aren't outpacing the dead/dying by greater than 10% then we can look at spreading the seed again as it were.

Again not telling anyone in the world what to do, just asking for anyone out there to look at the biggere picture, and to start planning for a world that may not see end times for quite awhile yet potentially.

Rob the Hutt

Eyepoke said...

just a couple of thoughts here rob, and i'm not jumping all over you. i think you presented some well thought out points, i would just like to offer some counter points, in the spirit of debate, (not arguing);
i think that you left God out of your equation. do you really think that he would send children if we, as a planet, couldn't stand it? that he would destroy his creation in that way? if you believe that He loves us, i don't see how that's possible. and i never heard of him rescinding the commmandment to multiply and replenish the earth. also, i agree that some families that are poverty stricken ought not to have children, but it all depends on why they are having them i think. if you are having them to get more welfare, then that's a bad idea. but my sister-in-law has five children, they are not in an ideal finacial situation (i hope you don't mind my sharing this, sister-in-law!) and i have never seen happier kids or a happier family, despite the money trouble. and they get by. somehow, some way, they are always taking care of in the essentials that they need. (needs here, not wants!) i think people as a whole put far to much emphasis on money. whether or not you should have children is between you, your spouse, and God, and if you approach it in that manner, then money shouldn't enter into the decision process at all. again, if you pull God into it from the beginning, he's not going to send you more than you can handle.

Anonymous said...

urgh, that was liz, not john, above, there, the rebuttal to rob!!

theefxman said...

I didn't take god out of the equation. I reference scripture more than once. I also did not reference scripture in a way to support my arguement as you may have noticed.

It's going to be impossible to speak about this without 100% faith in pre-destiny being on the table. So I might as well just leave it at my earlier comment. Choose to do what you want. Like I said myself and much of my family grew up from poverty and have accomplished great things. I never said "not having much money" was a issue. I was saying we could get to a point where we have no money, where 1,000,000+ unemployed workers turns into 10,000,000 unemployed workers. There won't be cheap land available by that point to raise your own food on, there won't be enough money in the church funds to give food enough to those that need it. We just need to start meeting god halfway on making responsible decisions. He gave us free will for a reason to make educated decisions. Pre-destiny is there, that doesn't mean we can't use our brains to make some smart decisions (especially since that scenario can still apply to pre-destiny).

Rob

Your Favorite, and Mine - Mary said...

I think I would agree with Liz on that point. I think that people need to be responsible when they have children. If you are a single mother on welfare with 6 kids already, you do not need to go have in-vitro fertilization and have 8 more at one time (a la the woman in California). That is irresponsible, and there is no way that that woman can give her children the emotional support or the financial support that they need. That was a bad decision. But if you are a family that takes care of your own business and are able to care for your kids, then you should be allowed to have as many as you choose. If you look at places like Japan where they have almost stopped having children altogether, now they are having problems being able to support their infrastructure, because there are not enough people to carry on the work. People that make blanket statements that people should not be allowed to have more than a certain number of children are WAY overstepping anything that is any of their business.

PS Bruce, we could. >:)

Your Favorite, and Mine - Mary said...

Hey Rob, I was writing my last post at the same time you were. I think you're right about being responsible. People should make responsible decisions. I think that most people in the USA today DO make responsible reproductive decisions. Most families do not have more than 3 or 4 kids on the high end. Yes, some do have more and can't care for them, and some have no children at all. The point in my opinion is that it is not the government's job to tell me how many people I am allowed to have in my family.

Eyepoke said...

The environmental concerns that are so popular to yack about in our culture are for the most part not backed up by real science, and are at best an "Amercrombie and Fitch" style fad, and at worst a poltical tool used to generate fear.

Read Michael Crichton's State of Fear, and the first chapter of Glenn Beck's An Inconveient Book.

Ot just the following short essays by MC. (my other favorite MC)

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/essay-stateoffear-whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.html


and


http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html

theefxman said...

Yea I've said it's not anyone's job to tell me not to have them in both my comments.

But I also don't think we should do things simply because someone tells us not to. (I'm sure you were joking when you wish you could have more simply because they said not to? :) )

I'm sure I'm being a hypocrite here as we all are. We are all human and there has only ever been one perfect being. But if we all used a bit more sense, and a less " because I can so I will " I think the world would be better off.

We cannot and should not send our children over to Japan to make up for their deficit. Lord knows we have plenty of children that can't be cared for looking for good homes. But that's the situation we should try to avoid. Too many children are in foster care not because of losing both parents and any family that cares about them, but because of those unwilling or unable to care for them. (unable being finacially, mentally, etc)

I am 100% in favor of adoption over abortion. But I think we should try and limit the oppurtunity for that to happen.

You could play the what if game till the end of time, but let me just present a scenario real quick.

I'll use my own child as an example as not to offend anyone worse than I probably already will.

We decide to only have 2 kids. We raise our kids with the mind of Christ. Our kid grows up, rebels from the lords teachings for whatever reason, decides to have 6 kids before they come to their sense and realize what they did.

That's a situation that anyone who has raised a kid to adulthood would tell you could happen. No matter how well you raise your kid. That situation is then 100% out of my control, all I can do is love the grandchildren which is what would happen.

Then 2 of them grow up, 1 of them is very succesful and decides to have 6 kids themselves. The other ends up in a situation like their parent and has 5-6 themselves in unfavorable fashion. You keep this up long enough and we all lose. It's simple math really. The one equation people leave out with japan is they had a freaking a bomb dropped on their country which decimated a great majority of their population back when the numbers that died were more critical than say the same ammount died today (in another country, obviously the same in japan today would be devasting to the population). What I just said was, when hiroshima was destroyed, it killed a certain number of those who could bear children, the potential of their children, and then their children was immediately destroyed. That leads to some serious numbers even if they only every other couple had 2 kids.

Sigh, this is really why I stopped being serious all the time as a teen. It's really depressing to think about anything sensibly. Let's all just do our own thing and be blissfully ignorant and enjoy life right? :)

Sounds good to me.. I quit :)

Rob

timpani76 said...

I think it's fine to say that people should not have more children than they can support, until you start adding umpteen stipulations to the term "support" (sending your kid to ivy league schools for instance is not necessary). Being a self-sufficient family unit should be the only goal (sans welfare) and there should be no other stipulations added to that.

On the other hand, we NEED more people in this country if the baby boomers are going to actually be able to retire. The baby boomers are a big part of the population, and in order for them to retire, there need to be enough in the younger generation paying into social security for the system to keep working.

More babies=more tax payers and social security wager earners.

timpani76 said...

Last time I checked, the USA was pretty close to Zero population growth. Europe is only increasing in population because of the birth rate among it's immigrant population. It's third world countries that are running up the numbers for population growth. China has over 1/5 of the population of the world right now, and other Asian countries (like India) also account for large numbers.

theefxman said...

You can't tax someone if they don't have a job. You can't create jobs out of thin air. I don't even think Obama is going to be able to hit his mark for new jobs. I wish someone would think of all the people that are out of work, unable to support a family, and the potential for that many more jobless people coming up. Social security is not looking so good btw, we will be getting about the same as anyone retiring today. The problem is we will be getting the same as someone retiring today. The cost of living is going to be exponetial to the size of the population when we retire. Because of food, fuel, land prices by that time, again all because of surging population. The current formula for american success isn't going to last, I don't think that means we need socialist actions, so please please please don't say that's what I'm saying.

What i'm saying is we need to come up with a new intelligent plan that increases our potential for our children rather than sets them up for further disappointment.

Rob

lizS said...

let me just clarify one of your points rob; you think raising your children sensibly is to raise them to have only a small number of children? i don't understand that mentality. mary has two, and she's totally happy. but again, my sister-in-law has five, and she's totally happy. so who's sensible, in your definition? also, i really and sincerely believe that things are not as bad as the media would like us to believe. you mentioned it was satan's world; in a sense you are right, but remember that God reins supreme. fear, dread and hopelessness are satan's tools. and God will not give mankind or individuals more than we can handle, with His help. he doesn't send children willy-nilly; it's not science, it's creation that he shares with us. have hope man; there are a lot of good people out there still, and we have The Big Man in our corner. how can we lose? ;)

lizS said...

i meant it's only satan's world if we give in to fear and hopelessness, and quit using our brains. i forgot to finish off my thought, lol!

theefxman said...

Somewhere along the lines I either said or someone assumed I was speaking on behalf of the country. When I am talking in generalities about the world.

What I said in my original comment is, if for some reason the rapture doesn't come for several thoasand more years, we are going to run out of land for people to live on.

It's not just " oh we'll just build on the next plot, then the next plot then the next plot, cut some trees, a new plot, etc etc " we also have to put our trash somewhere, we also have to have enough fresh water for everyone to drink, etc etc.

There are certain elements to the tree huggers arguments about sustanability that need to be looked at with some common sense, instead of looking at the scientific data from either side of the fence.

I know that there is a surplus of water in one state, and then a drought in the next, and this happens over hundreds of years. But the thing is 300 years ago we didn't have a population that was 1/8 the way towards filling up the planet. So if you had a major drought in Georgia it was ok because you were only sustaining 300,000 people or whatever it might have been. People lived on much less then anyway.

Now you need much more water to keep peoples lawns green (perish the thought at a brown lawn!) you need electricity for every home. From coal or water or nuclear power all consumable resources.

I'm not saying Al Gore is right, I'm saying think about everything you use up. Then multiply it by roughly 150 million (half of the roughly 300 million population of the united states) I say half because that's more than fair to say that half of the country is at least less wasteful than the rest. ( at least I hope so )

The numbers add up.

Also, about the 1% rate, we are currently at a 1.01% increase rate, while the rest of the world is roughly at 1.18%. However the project ammounts are as follows.


Long term, the U.S. growth rate is projected to surpass that of the world at large: the Census Bureau projects a population of 439 million in 2050,[9] which is a 46% gain from 2007, compared to the world population's gain of 38% over the same period, per United Nations projections; per the U.N., the U.S. increase will be 32%, from 306 million in 2007 to 402 million in 2050.[10]

lizS said...

good discussion everyone! i love this stuff! i hope you don't feel victimized rob, lol! or that i was deliberatly picking on you, or that anyone was. i know everyone who's commented so far very very well indeed, and we're just debating, in the true sense of the word. not arguing, or trying to say 'you dummy!', or anything like that. you have well thought out arguments, like i said before, and how can you say you have an opinion if you can't defend it? also, i love debate because you always learns something new; about yourself or your subject. thanks everybody!

theefxman said...

I don't believe in having to be defensive. I mean I know you have to defend yourself, your country, your beliefs. Etc... But on a elementary level I don't believe in creating situations where you need to make someone uncomfortable simply for the sake of educating oneself. Again I'm sure I'm being a hypocrite, but wanted to get that thought out while it was there. ;)

theefxman said...

Also I'm not saying anyone with multiple kids already should get rid of the ones they have for goodness sake. I'm saying maybe we should put together some legitimate data that's not charged from either the left or right wings, and educate our children about it, then leave it to pre-destiny.

Rob

theefxman said...

Also eyepoke, if I went by everything a author wrote then I would be a scientologist. :) I kid of course :)

Eyepoke said...

Of course, if you don't even bother to read you are just uninformed.

I've been studying this enviro stuff for years, and the more hard data I look at, more obvious the truth becomes- Global warming is a fad, and most of the other enviro issues are 90% hype.

Just read one of the MC essays, FX.

Your Favorite, and Mine - Mary said...

LOL Rob, I love how you had to make sure if I was joking by adding a question mark at the end of your statement! You crank me up. And good point about the A-Bomb.Didn't really think of that, but their not having kids out of choice is also a factor in their problems over there.

Timpani, you're right, we cannot and should not legislate how many kids a person can have based on their ability to "support" them, because that's a slippery slope. It is not the government's job to regulate reproduction, and I certainly wasn't suggesting that they should.

I have heard quite a few news stories lately about different countries establishing holidays so that their citizens can stay in and make babies, because they are that desperate for new citizens to replace the former ones. Even offering cash and prizes to those that successfully carry a baby to term. Really, I'm glad we don't have the problem here. America is an amazing place with unlimited potential to create and in the process continue being able to support the people that live here. (Did you notice that when govt. started meddling in private business' affairs, the American dream started declining? That is not to say that govt. doesn't have a place, OSHA is super important, for example, but when it overreaches, people suffer.) America still has immense expanses of land that are uninhabited, and as long as we grow by birth, and not open border anarchy ("Come on in guys, bring all your kids, your in-laws, your brothers and sisters, and all their extended families!") it should still take plenty of time to fill the place up. Another thought is not to reward bad behavior by giving more benefits to those that use their children as their meal ticket.

Bruce said...

wow i missed so much. i have 5 kids. i am broke. but by what standard am i broke. if you look at the history of the world and what people had i am insainly rich. my fam all has clothes. we eat well(i weigh 250lbs) we have a house with heat and air con. if you look back to a time where they had much less stuff and money they had more kids. my great grand father had 11. big fams used to be the norm not the exception and most of them were poor. but you do have to be responcible with how you do things and the choices you make. the calli woman should be sterilised. and there are many others who should have their reproductive rights taken away. but you wont be able to legislate away stupidity. it would be nice but alass. i can tell you that in my fam, when we had 4 kids we(my wife especially) didnt feel like a hole fam. after the 5th was born, we felt done and took measures to ensure that we were. as for jobs for every one, well the govronment screwed that up for us to begin with. the nafta stuff. we dont have many manufacturing jobs left. we let other countries make stuff for us. how many things to you buy that say "made in the USA"? if we started makeing all our own stuff again we would have to start begging for more people to come to work. and the idea of supply and demand comes into play for the workers and the wages go up. as to U.S. population groth, many of those #'s are based on immagrents(legal and otherwise) and there kids. there are a lot of people who only have one child or no children at all. if we had a space problem i might say slow down. and i expect we would be told by god some how to slow down. of corse gods population controle plan has always been done threw war and desease. im tired of typing now

Your Favorite, and Mine - Mary said...

Oh Bruce, you make God sound so compassionate when you put Him in that context: "God's population control is usually through war and disease." True nonetheless. Honestly, though, often disease comes from too many people stuffed too close together to provide for proper sanitation. Which comes back to a population problem. We don't have that in the US yet. There's a LOT of land still out there. I'm not saying we should cover every square inch, but it'll take a LONG time to be able to do that anyway.

Bruce said...

some of the big cities are prety cramped. of corse people have the option to move but.....