birth control on foreign soil.

[Demonsthenes]

There are countries, India, singapore to name a few, that overpopulate their environment and and put stress on their natural environment do you think they should be allowed to do so or do you think they should implement some kind of birth control program to at the very least sustai n the status quo?

[Lilith]

Ideally, people shouldnt have more kids than what they can afford to care for. Doing so, leaves children in impoverished societies with so many disadvantages which may include healthcare, education, and very important, not enough food to go around. Setting up some sort of birth control program to TEACH about unwanted pregnancies AND sexually transmitted diseases would be a great idea, if they dont have one already... which i dont know if they do or not. Actually coming in and saying "you cant have any more kids" should only be done if there is a real threat to a society as a whole. Which it sounds like there might be. Either way... i dont know anything, so... that is all.

[Anita Blake]

well, look at what's been done in china, where a one-child limit was imposed upon the people. Traditionally, male children were more highly valued, so thousands, if not millions of baby girls have been aborted or abandoned simply because of their gender. Now, over 20 years after this one-child limit was introduced, there are adult male children who are so deeply spoiled that they are unable to tie their own shoes, because their family has placed great importance in ensuring that their sole child has nothing but the best. Also, they have very few women their age to marry because so many female children were thrown away or sold into prostitution.

If china is a good example of anything, it's why forced birth control in an old culture is a very bad idea. Mandatory population limits are an invitation to human-based crime. There are cultural considerations that need to be taken into account as well. Marcella is right that programs shoudl be introduced to teach people in overpopulated/at risk nations about birth control options, and we in the "first world" ( :rolleyes: ) should be offering free brith control options to countries like india and africa to stop the spread of disease and unwanted children. It's one of the reasons that it's very important to change the role of women in many developing nations - they need to first understand and then have reproductive options available to them. Men in developing nations must also be educated about the importance of condoms and their role in sustainability. (hell, men in the developed world could learn a little about the fact that they have responsibility as well)

The problem is that many religions, having been created hundreds if not thousands of years ago, when it was much more important to bear many children because of high infant mortality rates, are deeply against the introduction of birth control options and attempt to sabotage many efforts to educate men and women about their sexual and reproductive choices (in the developed world as well and the developing world...)

Ironically, however, because we in the Western world are often so well-educated about birth control and sex in general, and because women have such an advanced role in society, more and more women are choosing not to have children, and we are facing a population decline (at least in canada we are, fewer and fewer canadian-born people are having babies, particularly amongst those with post-secondary education and higher). the result is that stupid people are breeding and smart people aren't.

happy thought, huh?

[AquaFizz]

I don't feel like doing a LOT of research, or really contemplating my own opinions on this, but..

The life boat theory is by someone who's name I can't remember. We discussed it in my International Relations class, back when I was still a Poli Sci major. The idea is that the earth can really only sustain so many people and that eventually, if we have too many, something catastrophic will happen (We'll weigh too much and throw off gravity, run out of natural resources, ect). Thus, we have things like Tsunamis and deseases that wipe out large portions of our population at a time to keep the earth from overflowing. The actual name come from an analogy of people on a lifeboat that's filled to capacity. There's someone drowning in the ocean....do you take them in and potentially sink the boat to kill EVERYONE, or just let one person die? It has a lot to do with Balkanization (I think thats the right word, too).

Do I think WE should try to implement birth control policies in foreign countries? No. Do I think foreign countries should implement birth control policies of their own? Thats up to them. I don't think they should go around killing kids, though.

However, Now I'm going to go on a rant. And, really, you can just ignore it because it's a little off topic.

Do I think WE need birth control policies in our own country? Yes. I don't want to start a big fight or offend anyone, but I'm going to say this anyway. If there's one thing in the ocean of political issues that I feel the most strongly about-this is probably it. I'm sick of my tax dollars paying for someone else's mistake. I'm sick of little girls running around who don't know better than to keep their legs crossed or use protection. Then they end up pregnant, then they have the child, then they want Wic (or is it wick or Wik? I dunno) and Welfare and live off the more responsible people of society. Do I think we should give random women abortions everytime they get knocked up? No. Do I think we need to limit the kids that a married couple is allowed to have? Only if they're having more than they can take care of.

I'm not sure birth control is the answer. I think better pregnancy and sex education needs to be given. I think the money that goes to these women to feed their children (that a lot of time ends up being used for new clothes/drugs/whatever) needs to go towards showing these women a better way to live & to paying workers for programs like DCF (Department of Children and Family) to get children out of homes where mothers/fathers arent giving them the care and love they deserve.

I know the government should stay out of it's citizens personal lives. But, when smart, RESPONSIBLE people are stuck paying for people who can't get their acts together-something needs to be done.

I guess it's harsh. No, I know it's a little harsh. But, for the last 5 years I've watched a good friend of mine, who got pregnant when we were 15, spend the money from the government on new clothes and video games for her boyfriend when she should be spending it to get her child fed and dressed better for school. She can barely take care of one child and now shes having another. I want my tax dollars to go to getting her tubes tied, to finding those children a better home, to getting her in a career development program so she can get her act together. I'm sick of my tax dollars pay for blunts.

[Heleina]

I think a number of interesting points have been made on this topic. My head is still trying to sort itself out into some semblance of logical thought processes this evening, but one question comes to mind re a comment made by Marcela.


Doing so, leaves children in impoverished societies with so many disadvantages which may include healthcare, education, and very important, not enough food to go around.

I'm wondering if over population is really the cause of these types of problems. I know in Australia (by no means an over populated country) we still have people growing up with health and education disadvatage and with not enough food to eat.

Is care and protection for the welfare and wellbeing of children even a population issue? I heard on the radio yesterday that in Australia a child is abused every 13 minutes.

Is the world becoming over populated? I'm not sure but somewhere along the line on a global scale things seems to be evening themselves out ie women in developed coutries having less babies.

Are we running out or resources to feed and care for our population or are we abusing and misusing the resources that we have?

So many questions, so few answers... ~sigh~

But to answer the question at hand with my opinion... Should we have enforced birth control programs in underdeveloped countries? definately no, when we start to treat and/or think of treating people from another country in a manner less than how we would treat ourselves we undermine theirs and our own humanity.

[QuirkyTemplate]

Ironically, however, because we in the Western world are often so well-educated about birth control and sex in general, and because women have such an advanced role in society, more and more women are choosing not to have children, and we are facing a population decline (at least in canada we are, fewer and fewer canadian-born people are having babies, particularly amongst those with post-secondary education and higher). the result is that stupid people are breeding and smart people aren't.

happy thought, huh?

My grand uncle or grand father's brother in law ... one of those, had that same observation. He put it in cattle-farming terms and used a bunch of course language, but the idea was the same. He graduated first in his class as West Point, so despite first impressions, he's actually very smart. I bring this up for no reason at all. In fact, I've added nothing to this conversation ... hmm.

Too bad all of us western people aren't courageous enough to go and help. Or at the very least, send our vast wealth. "Us", because I'll admit freely that the idea of leaving my comfortable lifestyle and giving everything I have to help the 'less fortunate' seems daunting and frankly, unrealistic. I doubt I'm alone in this either.

[Anita Blake]

I'm sick of little girls running around who don't know better than to keep their legs crossed or use protection.


i'm equally sick of little boys and men who should know better who can't keep it in their pants and take an ounce of responsibility for the women they knock up and the children they father. and the attitude that somehow it's all the girl's fault. it takes two to tango, and to create an unwanted pregnancy.

you said something else ... "i don't think birth control is the answer", but i think that for most purposes, the term "birth control" is an alternative phrase to "family planning", not necessarily mandatory sterilization, which i think is what you were talking about? :confused: at least, when i think of "birth control" i think of the various ways by which a woman and her partner can exhibit control over their reproductive cycles: birth control pill, condoms, diaphragms, depo provera shots, etc... just clarifying.

i don't think we should be forcing birth control options on developing nations, but since we seem to take an interest in educating/medicating impoverished nations, we should also take an equal interest in (somewhat culturally sensitive) sexual education. We by no means should go in and tell people that all their women should be in total control of their reproductive cycles, but in so many places (even in north america) an awareness must be created about the consequences of unprotected sex. should we fix ourselves first? quite possibly. i could go off on a whole rant about why i think that most of the unwanted pregancies in north america occur, but then i'd be accused of picking on a particular religious group and all it's adherents. :dozey: let's just say that some religious leaders need to wake up and see that what they preach has dire and unintended consequences, and they need to catch up with the last century and worry less about babies that have never been concieved and more about the ones that have.

[AquaFizz]

Eh. See, by birth control tend to think of things like the pill (or shot, or patch-by the way...don't put it on your forehead. ;)), or killing off the girls, or abortion and the like...not so much family planning.

I do agree that before we go preaching to other countries, we first need to fix the same problem in our own. I DO think sending people over to teach people in other countries (Like South Africa for instance) about AIDS and condoms and Abstinence is useful, though...as long as we dont start enforcing laws upon them. The biggest thing, though, is that in a lot of religions and/or cultures fertility is a sign of being a good woman (or man, for that matter) and also, a lot of times any form of birth control is looked down upon.

Its hard to know what to do when there's so many different beliefs in the world. You don't want to force your OWN on someone elses, but at the same time, you don't want to see poor children dying of AIDS or being abandoned or sold into prostitution on a regular basis.

Meh.

[Buck]

Im risking my male livelyhood by sticking my nose in here. Here goes..

Im assuming that the original poster was talking about preventative birth control. So let's keep abortion out of this thread.

Personally, I dont think it is right for any country to stick its head in another's like this. It is up to that country to decide whether to implement programs and/or laws on a personal matter like this.


Fizz, your life-boat theory (i know this isnt your theory) is laughable. It is one of those logical arguements that isnt really pragmatic. The bit about too many people causing gravity destabilization is a hoot. The total mas of the earcth does NOT change throughout, gravity should not be effected in the slightest. As for the food shortage part, yea this part Ive heard of and again it is not really pragmatic. Something like a food shortage does not happen over night. Hell it wouldnt even happen over the course of a decade. Something this dramatic would have warning signs maybe a near century ahead of time. As for the solution to such a thought eexperiment I say let nature take its course. Food would become a valued resource to be fought over (like oil today ;) ) and would have food costs shoot through the roof, over a gradual trend. In other words the cost of an apple would cost 200 times that of a knife to cut it with.

A price hike like this would happen very slowly and surely over the course of a few decades. Again a very gradual process. Under such overpopulation circumstances I think water would be much more valued and the first thing to cost money. Look at us now. Two decades ago, if someone tried to charge a dollar for bottled water it would have been the most perverse humour anyone would have ever seen and that person would have been laughed off the streets. Presently however, this is not some sour stunt, but reality. Does this mean that we are doomed to die from lack of food and water by 2050... no it doesnt. There just some really clever marketing execs over at Coca-Cola.

I say nature will take its course under such hypothetically extreme circumstances. People raised in such a harsh costing environment would be very self aware of the cost of raising a child and would be very careful (on their own!!) to have one at most.

As for over population in the very real and the here and now. There are other options than what China did, as Anita brought up. It is called immigration. Plenty of countries are not overpopulated and some like Canada (thanks Anita!) are ina population decline. Over population does today what it has done for eons in nature.

It has cause migrations. This is true for most life on earth.

*scurries away before he gets casterated* :D

[sir archely]

i didn't really want to get into this one but i had to respond to buck...


Im assuming that the original poster was talking about preventative birth control. So let's keep abortion out of this thread.

Abortion certainly has it's place in this thread. I mean, just look at abortions that happen as a result of population control when a family wants a kid, but only wants a boy. There are other places in this discussion abortion has its place as well.


Personally, I dont think it is right for any country to stick its head in another's like this. It is up to that country to decide whether to implement programs and/or laws on a personal matter like this.

Bah. Without totally derailing the subject... it seems rather silly to even bring this up. This only goes backwards. Hey, how about countries that have horrible human rights abuses? We should probably just leave them alone too. Where exactly are you drawing the line?


Fizz, your life-boat theory (i know this isnt your theory) is laughable. It is one of those logical arguements that isnt really pragmatic. The bit about too many people causing gravity destabilization is a hoot. The total mas of the earcth does NOT change throughout, gravity should not be effected in the slightest. As for the food shortage part, yea this part Ive heard of and again it is not really pragmatic. Something like a food shortage does not happen over night. ...[etc.]

First of all, i doubt (i hope) fizz was being serious with the gravity bit. but what else isn't great about the theory that there is a maximum human (or any species) population the earth (or any individual ecosystem) can sustain. I mean, that's some pretty basic biology right there. from what i understand, we aren't too that point, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. And really, we don't get to choose. The population of some area will regulate itself in response to the resources available. (which is why it's actually probably not a great idea to ship food supplies into chronically food short areas... we're really only ensuring that the next generation is hungry as well.)

further, something like a food shortage can and most certainly has happened overnight. Sometimes people call them famines. Maybe you've heard of them? ;) It all depends on what scale you're looking, and as you seem to mostly be willing to look at localized country scales...


I say nature will take its course under such hypothetically extreme circumstances. People raised in such a harsh costing environment would be very self aware of the cost of raising a child and would be very careful (on their own!!) to have one at most.

This is a pretty blatant disregard of the facts. There are such "hypothetically" extreme circumstances on the globe today. But guess what... people have sex. It is, arguably, what we do (and what every organism does). To say that people are 'going to be aware of the costs and limit themselves' is very much clipping the blinders on and ignoring much of what drives us in the first place.

Sorry, i only skirted around the actual subject... maybe more later.

[Malcor Sylverwood]

Something this dramatic would have warning signs maybe a near century ahead of time.
Such as the steep drop in the Great Plains aquifer? Let that sucker run dry and watch North Texas through South Dakota become unsuitable to much of its current water dependant crops (wheat, corn, etc).

And, in a potentially worse scenaria, the aquifer that provides water to most of China's farmland is experiencing worse things, from what I've heard.

-Malcor "Conservationist" Sylverwood

[AquaFizz]

Population Stats and a bit about the Lifeboat Theory at the Bottom. (http://www.lifeuk.org/downloads/population_factsheet.pdf)

I have class.

And, I'm not sure if I'm sober yet. I'll write more later.

[Buck]

i didn't really want to get into this one but i had to respond to buck... Im honored that it took my ego driven rant to drive you to voice your opinions :)





Abortion certainly has it's place in this thread. I mean, just look at abortions that happen as a result of population control when a family wants a kid, but only wants a boy. There are other places in this discussion abortion has its place as well.

Umm,, abortion actually should be in a thread of its own. It is a highly debated topic and adding it to the list here only complicates things immensely. Also, I am of the opinion that a decision on allowing abortion in some form to curb population increases is most definitely not another country's right to recommend. Look at us here in the US, it is to this day a heated topic at the lunch table and can you imagine if someplace like Canada (whom noone hates really) piped up and gave its .02 cents on the issue? No thanks.






Bah. Without totally derailing the subject... it seems rather silly to even bring this up. This only goes backwards. Hey, how about countries that have horrible human rights abuses? We should probably just leave them alone too. Where exactly are you drawing the line?

Im drawing the line at a very fine position. I have always been of the opinion that people get help they ask for it. When you help without them asking for it is viewed as meddling of the worst degree and breeds nothing but hate for the 'helper' country. I agree though, lets not completely derail the OP's topic. Although I think this is a core issue in the original statement.




First of all, i doubt (i hope) fizz was being serious with the gravity bit. but what else isn't great about the theory that there is a maximum human (or any species) population the earth (or any individual ecosystem) can sustain. I mean, that's some pretty basic biology right there.

I agree. But there are also controls in nature for this too. If there are too many herbavores, there is aa noticeable increase in population of predators to feast and in the vice versa situation if there are too many predators in a particualr niche, they either migrate or die from malnutrition. Basic biology.
Do I think that this applies to humanity...no. Due to our awareness (:rolleyes: ) other things effect is more. Such as Economy of Scale.



... from what i understand, we aren't too that point, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. And really, we don't get to choose. The population of some area will regulate itself in response to the resources available. (which is why it's actually probably not a great idea to ship food supplies into chronically food short areas... we're really only ensuring that the next generation is hungry as well.) You hit the nail on the head here my friend.


further, something like a food shortage can and most certainly has happened overnight. Sometimes people call them famines. Maybe you've heard of them? ;) It all depends on what scale you're looking, and as you seem to mostly be willing to look at localized country scales... Yes I am aware of the concept of famines, and yes some of them have happened almost over night. Such events are usually temporary dramatic drops in a source of a prime consumption resource. Take the Irish famine that happened about a century ago. What did it cause? A massive immigration.

In a case like this, I think we would both agree that food aid is deserved and should be given. A bad crop is a temporary crisis that can be minimized with imported food stuffs.




This is a pretty blatant disregard of the facts. There are such "hypothetically" extreme circumstances on the globe today. But guess what... people have sex. It is, arguably, what we do (and what every organism does). To say that people are 'going to be aware of the costs and limit themselves' is very much clipping the blinders on and ignoring much of what drives us in the first place.
Hehe, here is where we disagree and agree. You tell a person how to 'curb' their sexual life and you will get laughed in your face. If you tell someone that food will cost more and that the cost of raising a child will cost more, you better believe they will all of a sudden grow ears and supposed wisdom.
Most people hold political views with their wallet.




Sorry, i only skirted around the actual subject... maybe more later.
*shrugs* Bring it, this is a good topic and there are obvious differences in opinion. :)

-------------

Such as the steep drop in the Great Plains aquifer? Let that sucker run dry and watch North Texas through South Dakota become unsuitable to much of its current water dependant crops (wheat, corn, etc).

And, in a potentially worse scenaria, the aquifer that provides water to most of China's farmland is experiencing worse things, from what I've heard.

-Malcor "Conservationist" Sylverwood

Well, here what can I say. Some countries have disregard for their environment, and prefer to count the ca$h in short term gains than to worry about something that can most probably happen in the next century. It is very unfortunate, and upsetting to me too, that the United States is one of those countries. If you look at countries like Ireland, they are much more green (forgive the pun!) I blame non-environmentalism for such a doom, not overpopulation. :furious:

--------------


Population Stats and a bit about the Lifeboat Theory at the Bottom.

Interesting link Fizz. When you get a chance take a closer look to what is says and disregard most of the 'quote'- propaganda on that pdf. The graph only goes specifically up to the year 2000. And it starts way back when. Dare I say that numbers for anything up to 1800 are gross estimates. These estimates are close enough to obey the trend depicted however, you should also note a bolded text box below it. It states:

There is considerable evidence indicating that the world is experiencing population implosion not explosion.
That is at the bottom of the page with the graphs. At the very end of the pdf is also 'their' definition of implosion:

Population Implosion – A decrease in population

So if you ignore most of the quotes, because it is just propaganda and opinion and take the graph with the legend note, you should conclude that the part they did not show in population 'increase' trend is an actual population 'decline'. Misleading if you ask me.

Given there is such a decline already (?) only reinforces my view that things tend to level out on their own. ;)


edit-- lots of quote and /quote mistakes... :blush:
arch's edit - buck edited it and still didn't get it right. :p ... just helping cause i was responding.

[Amos]

I'm wondering if over population is really the cause of these types of problems. I know in Australia (by no means an over populated country) we still have people growing up with health and education disadvatage and with not enough food to eat.

Is care and protection for the welfare and wellbeing of children even a population issue? I heard on the radio yesterday that in Australia a child is abused every 13 minutes.
this is the big problem. it's not so much how many people are in the world, it's more to do with the type of people in the world.

the world will regulate it's human population by starving us and warring us against each other if necessary. what some people don't understand, or wont admit, is that we as a species still exist within nature. the only difference between our situation, and, for example, a herd of cows eating too much food and consequently killing themselves and many other species with them, is that we have the ability to conciously regulate the way we live, thus thawrting mother natures attempts to thin out our numbers.

but we will fail. this is my prediction. we will fail, and when we have learned from our lessons will we try once more and fail again. we will fail numerous times until we get the hang of it and move on to the next big problem. the way we always do. if we're lucky. if the world still wants us. does it even want us now? we invent medicines and it slaps us with an incurable virus. we begin to philosophise and fall victim to nihilism. is it just testing us, or is it trying to wipe us out? the world will can go on without us, there's no doubt in my mind it will survive us no matter how hard we hit it, it might simply decide to eradicate us all and produce a better designed species of self-concious creatures. not so hungry, hungry hippos. the costs to itself will be huge, but in the end it will be for the best. ah the wonders of evolution.

i think the world is just testing us, but if we fail the test the consequences will be dire. think of the world as a school. if we fail this test, we'll never get a higher education. no amount of daddy's money will get us into college, and we'll be dropped a few grade and held back indefinitely.

being a conservationist isn't the only solution to the problem. if half the human population wants to save the world and half doesn't care then it's not going to work. we have to put as much effort into developing healthy mindstates as we do conserving the ecology, maybe more. for our own sakes anyway.


forgive the pun!
never!


Look at us here in the US, it is to this day a heated topic at the lunch table and can you imagine if someplace like Canada (whom noone hates really) piped up and gave its .02 cents on the issue? No thanks.
believe it or not, other countries actually do pipe up with their own opinions. but can you imagine the US ever listening? :p

[Buck]

believe it or not, other countries actually do pipe up with their own opinions. but can you imagine the US ever listening?

:umm:

No. :D

[dark fuschia]

Such as the steep drop in the Great Plains aquifer? Let that sucker run dry and watch North Texas through South Dakota become unsuitable to much of its current water dependant crops (wheat, corn, etc).

And, in a potentially worse scenaria, the aquifer that provides water to most of China's farmland is experiencing worse things, from what I've heard.

-Malcor "Conservationist" Sylverwood

Same as the major one here, The Great Artesian Basin. It's kinda a bit valuable in the dryest country on earth to be ignored... but ignored it is. Its not just countries like India and Singapore that are overstretching their rescources.