Right for abortion to save the planet - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15057746
responsible nations have already few children which is the best way to save the environment.

Africa has up to 8 children per woman.

These countries need free abortion, anti baby pills and conodoms to get on 1-2 children per woman

Image
#15057754
The richer and more well off a country, the lower the birthrate.

Helping countries prosper will reduce the birthrate, to below 2, which will cause the population to shrink, over time. Education and birth control are key.

Thailand went from 4 kids per family in the 1980s, to about 1.5 kids per family, now. That's even lower than China, with the one child policy. Education and a strong birth control campaign did that.

Considering where most of the world's population is, we're not doing terribly bad... but there is certainly room for improvement.
#15057790
Limiting births is only a partial answer.

China, which has enforced strict birth control, including mandatory abortions, for several years, emits more carbon dioxide than the U.S. and Europe combined. When couples in the developing world save more income by limiting births, these new members of the middleclass trade in their bicycles for autos.

Furthermore, many people who don’t have children are hedonists who spend the extra money on material things and extensive travel, both of which consume resources and leave a large carbon footprint.
#15057795
Robert Urbanek wrote:Limiting births is only a partial answer.

China, which has enforced strict birth control, including mandatory abortions, for several years, emits more carbon dioxide than the U.S. and Europe combined. When couples in the developing world save more income by limiting births, these new members of the middleclass trade in their bicycles for autos.

Furthermore, many people who don’t have children are hedonists who spend the extra money on material things and extensive travel, both of which consume resources and leave a large carbon footprint.


Then the answer has nothing to do with killing people in developing countries, but instead limiting the population in developed countries.
#15057828
Robert Urbanek wrote:China, which has enforced strict birth control, including mandatory abortions, for several years, emits more carbon dioxide than the U.S. and Europe combined. When couples in the developing world save more income by limiting births, these new members of the middleclass trade in their bicycles for autos.
China fucked up their birthrate by limiting reproduction and the richer countries are at the same rate without stupid fertility and reproductive measures. Limiting births has FAILED China, and not helped it.

Changing how people live, is not solved with abortions. :roll:

As I said, already. Richer and prosperous countries already have birthrates low enough. You have to figure out ways to make the countries with higher rates, lower them. Education and birth control measures.

eg. Thailand birthrate 1960 = 6.15 / 2019 = 1.48 It dropped by 4 from 1970 to 1990, due to education, birth control measures(countrywide) and improved economic situation.

Kapeesh?


Abortions are not a fucking solution. :knife: That's as dumb as saying we need more disease and war.

Pants of dog wrote:Then the answer has nothing to do with killing people in developing countries, but instead limiting the population in developed countries.
Developing countries are already having lower birthrates. The developed countries only maintain their populations thru immigration.

Brazil is now at a very reasonable 1.7, for example... down from 6 in 1960.
#15057847
China's family planning policy achieved a similar decline in birthrates as Brazil's did except Brazil didn't coerce, violate or kill anyone. China's terror campaign against pregnancy was completely unnecessary.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Then the answer has nothing to do with killing people in developing countries, but instead limiting the population in developed countries.

I agree, Pants. We need to "limit the population in developed countries" as you put it.

Image
#15057849
AFAIK wrote:China's family planning policy achieved a similar decline in birthrates as Brazil's did except Brazil didn't coerce, violate or kill anyone. China's terror campaign against pregnancy was completely unnecessary.


Why, yes, Brazil has a much better population plan to help the environment. Oh wait, isn't Brazil destroying the Amazon rainforest?
#15057865
I agree with the OP but what about this other thing? Can we talk that instead?

@B0ycey The main issue here is that Snowden e[…]

Illinois might not be the state you want to base […]

Eh, this is direct transcript; Hunter admits on […]

Election 2020

Oh good glad to hear he's got everyone taken care […]