Is there a Population Problem

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]We would lose.
[/quote]

I doubt that, we have a huge tech advantage, it would of course be bloody but frankly so what some times you have got to be willing to take the losses in order to do whats right.


[quote]yeah we sure wouldn't be able to occupy it...what have they got like a 100 million man standing army?
[/quote]

No even including their airforce and navy it's only about 2.6 million not that much bigger than ours ( certianly not including our reserves and National Guard thrown in) a state like theres can never have that large an army, being part of the army must be exclusive or you can't use it to control the population.

[Dreamweaver]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 2 2004, 09:28 AM'] but that if she didn't have the abortion or if she left even after haveing the abortion that under his authority her husband would be executed, he then showed her evidence of his power to do exactly that. How is that for cohersion abort your baby or I'll kill your husband. She had the Abortion... [/quote]
Thats just horrible! Forcing someone to choose between the life of their own child or their husband? My heart goes out for ALL who are hurt by China's "one child" policy. It ultimately affects all of us.

What kind of justification is there for killing the husband in response to refusing to have an abortion? I do not like China's government.

[popestpiusx]

Interesting article:





November 30, 2004

Population to fall 100m in 50 years
From Rory Watson in Brussels



IN 50 years there will be almost 100 million fewer people living in Europe, according to a United Nations report.

The UN’s latest study on international migration released yesterday predicts that even if Europe gains an average of 600,000 immigrants a year, its population will fall by 96 million by 2050. Without the new arrivals, the decline would be even more spectacular: 139 million. Already immigration into Europe is partly helping to offset the impact of declining birth rates. The continent’s population would have shrunk by over four million in the final five years of the past century if it were not for the latest wave of immigrants.

In the late 1990s, immigration contributed to at least three-quarters of population growth in Austria, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Spain and Switzerland. During the past decade, the number of foreigners living in Finland, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain has doubled. However, the UN reports that while immigration can offset many of the consequences of ageing populations and labour shortages, it will not provide salvation for struggling pension programmes.

It gives warning that immigration rates would have to expand “at virtually impossible rates” if there were to be enough people of working age able to finance childhood and retirement schemes. As an example, it points to France which is projected to receive 3.75 million migrants over the next 50 years, but would need to accept 90 million to achieve a satisfactory budgetary ratio between those in and out of work.

Recent years have seen North America overtake Europe as the preferred destination for people looking to start a new life outside their native country. Between 1960 and 2000, the foreign-born population in the US more than tripled from 10 million to 35 million, with a further 8 million in Canada. Whereas four decades ago, six out of every 100 people in North America was an international migrant, the figure has now climbed to 13 per cent.

Europe still had a significant increase in migrants during the same period, up from 14 million to 33 million, raising their proportion of the total population from 3.3 per cent to 6.4 per cent. For statistical purposes, the UN does not count Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, the Russian Federation and Ukraine as part of Europe.

The report also highlights a change in the pattern of international migration. Whereas 40 years ago, 58 per cent of all migrants had moved to other developing countries as they fled from famine, drought and war, by the end of the century, they number just 37 per cent, while 46 per cent are rebuilding their lives in the developed world. The most recent figures reveal that 175 million people, equivalent to one in every 35 persons on Earth, are living outside the country of their birth.

Emigration can mean a brain drain for developing countries. Emigrants from Africa have triple the schooling of those staying at home. But this is partly offset by the funds that they send home. Remittances to developing countries now total at least $79 billion (£41 billion) and 70 per cent of foreign direct investment in China originates in the Chinese diaspora.

Copyright 2004 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions . Please read our Privacy Policy . To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from The Times, visit the Syndication website .

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 2 2004, 12:03 PM']
I doubt that, we have a huge tech advantage, it would of course be bloody but frankly so what some times you have got to be willing to take the losses in order to do whats right.




No even including their airforce and navy it's only about 2.6 million not that much bigger than ours ( certianly not including our reserves and National Guard thrown in) a state like theres can never have that large an army, being part of the army must be exclusive or you can't use it to control the population. [/quote]
I think it would depend upon who has hometeam advantage. If we fought in China would lose. Here, we would probably win.

Our tech advantage is not quite as extensive as you may think, especially since the Clinton regime of treasonous activities involving China. Plus, having spent four years in the Marines under said regime, I can assure you that our military has serious issues. It will have to overcome those before it wil be able to contend with anyone other than random Middle Eastern bandits. The Chinese mentality is that every citizen is a soldier, if the government so chooses. They will use anyone and everyone. They have done it before (remember Korea).

[toledo_jesus]

I think the best way to beat China is to encourage Communism to die. There are shoots of free enterprise growing in China now...maybe they will develop some more.

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
12/2 - First Thursday of Advent

There just seems to be something wrong with the following statement, which is the gist of those made by many "population control" advocates:

"There are too many of us, so let's kill that guy!"

In my own mind, they'd have a lot more legitimacy if they would step up and let themselves be killed first.

[aloha918]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Dec 2 2004, 11:59 AM'] Interesting article:





November 30, 2004

Population to fall 100m in 50 years
From Rory Watson in Brussels



IN 50 years there will be almost 100 million fewer people living in Europe, according to a United Nations report.

The UN’s latest study on international migration released yesterday predicts that even if Europe gains an average of 600,000 immigrants a year, its population will fall by 96 million by 2050. Without the new arrivals, the decline would be even more spectacular: 139 million. Already immigration into Europe is partly helping to offset the impact of declining birth rates. The continent’s population would have shrunk by over four million in the final five years of the past century if it were not for the latest wave of immigrants.

In the late 1990s, immigration contributed to at least three-quarters of population growth in Austria, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Spain and Switzerland. During the past decade, the number of foreigners living in Finland, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain has doubled. However, the UN reports that while immigration can offset many of the consequences of ageing populations and labour shortages, it will not provide salvation for struggling pension programmes.

It gives warning that immigration rates would have to expand “at virtually impossible rates” if there were to be enough people of working age able to finance childhood and retirement schemes. As an example, it points to France which is projected to receive 3.75 million migrants over the next 50 years, but would need to accept 90 million to achieve a satisfactory budgetary ratio between those in and out of work.

Recent years have seen North America overtake Europe as the preferred destination for people looking to start a new life outside their native country. Between 1960 and 2000, the foreign-born population in the US more than tripled from 10 million to 35 million, with a further 8 million in Canada. Whereas four decades ago, six out of every 100 people in North America was an international migrant, the figure has now climbed to 13 per cent.

Europe still had a significant increase in migrants during the same period, up from 14 million to 33 million, raising their proportion of the total population from 3.3 per cent to 6.4 per cent. For statistical purposes, the UN does not count Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, the Russian Federation and Ukraine as part of Europe.

The report also highlights a change in the pattern of international migration. Whereas 40 years ago, 58 per cent of all migrants had moved to other developing countries as they fled from famine, drought and war, by the end of the century, they number just 37 per cent, while 46 per cent are rebuilding their lives in the developed world. The most recent figures reveal that 175 million people, equivalent to one in every 35 persons on Earth, are living outside the country of their birth.

Emigration can mean a brain drain for developing countries. Emigrants from Africa have triple the schooling of those staying at home. But this is partly offset by the funds that they send home. Remittances to developing countries now total at least $79 billion (£41 billion) and 70 per cent of foreign direct investment in China originates in the Chinese diaspora.

Copyright 2004 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions . Please read our Privacy Policy . To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from The Times, visit the Syndication website . [/quote]
this is not about europe....there are other countries besides the more developed ones

[burnsspivey]

Just curious.

Those of you who argue that the "overpopulation myth" is used to increase birth control and abortion do know that we don't need any such thing, right? Even if overpopulation weren't a reality (I'll ignore any arguments to the contrary because that's not the issue I'm addressing here) there would still be people using birth control and having abortions. There will always be childfree people and there will certainly be people who wish to wait until a later point in their life to have children.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Dec 1 2004, 10:32 PM'] And what do they have to gain by being wrong? I used to work there. I know every single person that works there. You show me one shred of evidence that anything on that sight is wrong and I will get it researched and, if need be, corrected. Surely you are not suggesting the sight is propagating misinformation without positing some evidence to support your claim? [/quote]
There is a decidedly anti-birth control bent to that site. Aside from that it was founded by Fr. Paul Marx the "legendary founder of PRI and many [b]other[/b] pro-life organizations worldwide". I will not trust an organization that claims to be objective and then offers political bias.

[CreepyCrawler]

there is no overpopulation problem. it's a distribution problem. that is all.

where is the population exploding? india and china.

where is it shrinking? japan, europe, n. america (but immigration keeps the pop. here stable).

how is it that we're having such an explosion? it's an exaggeration. i don't think it's a conspiracy by abortion providers, i think it's an excuse used by rich predominantly white countries to, instead of share the wealth, try and limit the population of poor non-white countries. but excuses don't feed starving people and limiting births doesn't feed hungry babies. redistribution people! come on now.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 2 2004, 09:28 AM']


We shouldn't be at war in Iraq... we should be at war with China. [/quote]
Ditto that!

[Socrates]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Dec 2 2004, 01:50 PM'] There is a decidedly anti-birth control bent to that site. Aside from that it was founded by Fr. Paul Marx the "legendary founder of PRI and many [b]other[/b] pro-life organizations worldwide". I will not trust an organization that claims to be objective and then offers political bias. [/quote]
While in the meantime, we should trust the word of Communist dictatorships, and organizations that have a financial stake in providing "family planning services"?

Let's stick to debating the issues here, folks.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Oik' date='Dec 1 2004, 06:04 PM']
It would be a small step to bridge the gap between fitting and living... [/quote]
Actually it would be an extremely large step.

171,904,640/6,276,000,000 = 0.027 acres

Plus we would have to have area to grow food plus areas for business plus room for roads... I could go on, but I won't. It simply wouldn't work.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Dec 2 2004, 02:50 PM'] There is a decidedly anti-birth control bent to that site. Aside from that it was founded by Fr. Paul Marx the "legendary founder of PRI and many [b]other[/b] pro-life organizations worldwide". I will not trust an organization that claims to be objective and then offers political bias. [/quote]
I am well aware of who founded them. I used to work for them. I know Fr. Marx and single person who works for them (as I said before). Your argument is basically thus: anyone who starts organizations that are pro-life (and therefore against contraception) must not be objective; rather, he must be doing so for some political reason, ergo, he must not be trusted? Is that the gist of your argument? Please tell me you have more than that.

It seems to me you are questioning the motives of people you don't even know without presenting a single shred of evidence to support your accusations. As I said before, provide me with evidence that they are wrong on anything. Back up your argument that PRI is not trustwrthy with some facts. Otherwise, keep it to yourself. I don't much care for people making baseless accusations against people I know and have the utmost respect for (or anyone for that matter.)

[God Conquers]

So burnspivy, what do you define as an objective source on the subject? I bet it would be difficult to find one that does not hold a very obvious political bent.

Planned Parenthood donates tons of money to the democratic party so you couldn't use any sources affiliated with them, which is goign to be hard.