Show your stat on the ground coverage. Stack people into a 100 story building and now you only need one one-hundredth of a "Texas" to give everyone 1100 feet. Over-population is a joke. Reminds me of the episode on the myth of landfills. What is is with ostensibly scientific minds forgetting all about scale? There's no such thing as over-population. However, there is over-consumption and improper use of resources. There is always a call to reduce poor populations. However, rich populations consume MUCH more than poor populations and poor populations have a MUCH greater need for family connections/support and a young workforce. The reality is rich populations don't want to "help" poor populations - they just want the poor populations to disappear to make more room for the so-called advanced societies of wealthier populations. Is it a coincidence that calls for population control usually come from the wealthier people instead of from the poor people who endure the brunt of resource scarcity? With wealth comes greater resource consumption, including space, goods, and services. Since goods require labor to produce, and services are direct consumption of human labor, wealthier people are the ones creating more demand for human capital - and then complaining about over-population! If resource-utilization was reformed to a peak level of efficiency, I could begin to understand why over-population concerns would come up for discussion. However, the fact that people complain about population without doing enough to reform resource-utilization leads me to believe that the real political interest behind population-control is political-economic control over human capital so that wealthy people can guarantee their position of power vis-a-vis those they don't want to extend their way of life to include. Democracy has allowed prosperity to be expanded to a relatively large proportion of the global population and, as a result, there is sufficient political economic solidarity among the global middle-class to support widespread population and migration control that prevents poorer economies from expanding their human capital to achieve the same levels of prosperity that westerners have achieved by expanding that population. Then, the prosperous fortresses of the developed world can relegate auxiliary industries like the harvesting of various natural resources and agricultural goods to the global poor, who will never be permitted to expand their prosperity and power to a level where they get to decide for themselves how much to expand their populations and resource-utilization. What should happen is that developed economies should develop lifestyles that are sustainable enough that they are attainable for everyone globally, and then integrate the global population into that economic culture. At that point, everyone will be able to decide for themselves how much to reproduce because they will have achieved the maximum standard of living enjoyed anywhere, which will put them in the same position of conserving resources that developed economies are in. This is not just valid for the opposition between "the west and rest" but also for different income levels within developed economies. If poor people in the US and EU had attained a level of prosperity that they didn't want to lose, they would have the same concerns about having too many children as many middle- and upper- class people have developed. As for water supply, try reverse osmosis. We have a lot of water in the oceans. Necessity is the mother of invention.
after how many they can afford. Men who have 21 kids with 11 mothers should have one If he can afford all of his kids (like the Duggars) then I have no problem with it.
If I had a child, and he or she built a cannon...I would be bragging on that kid forever. "So what if she made a C on the English exam? when she was 12, she made a freaking cannon!!!" We could make a ballista and pelt our neighbors with rotted produce. Would be swell.
People who feel birth control measures are big taboo they should follow abstinence considering their strict principles. Others who can't control themselves have no better alternative than trying few of them. In my view finding some safe contraceptive for unwanted birth control measure is best bet one have in modern life...
In fact non in my knowledge come without any side effect for they are part and parcel Allopathic system of medicines. That's why I said find. Which is still illusive thing but creating awareness and demand for it might led to invention or discovery of it. Otherwise people who love using them as is it can use it happily. No problems! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I doubt if you can find one. All medicine/chemicals have a bunch of effects on the body. What is happy if you are already dead of breast cancer?
@MOM -- Well if you're a christian then you can't believe that there is a one hundred percent effective form of birth control, natural or otherwise. Even abstinence failed at least once.
Show us the 100% affective artificial contraceptive. As a chinese saying goes, every medicament has side-efec.
Oops, failed to get the point. That wasn't Arioch's claim: he stated, quite clearly, that if one subscribes to Christianity then of necessity one also believes there is NO 100% effective method of birth control: not even abstinence.
@MOM -- As Dywyddyr says, you missed the point. I really didn't think you'd understand it in the first place, but I'm an optimist so I hoped that you would. If you are a christian, and believe in the virgin birth(that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus and remained a virgin afterwards despite giving Jesus siblings) then you by necessity believe that there is literally no form of birth control that is one hundred percent effective. Even abstinence failed at least once(more times, actually), leading to a less than one hundred percent effectiveness rate. Besides, even from a scientific perspective abstinence isn't one hundred percent, there's always the possibility that human parthenogenesis could occur in a virgin and lead to "another" virgin birth(in fact, if Jesus had been a woman I'd have suspected human parthenogenesis in the first place). Do try and keep up.
The some of the new male pills look like they're going to be one hundred percent as well. The ones that stop sperm production temporarily will have to be one hundred percent or so close as to make no difference, you can't have babies if you're not producing sperm.
I'd rather get mySELF altered. I live in a toilet country where abortion is illegal, and yeah, I'm only 58 kilograms and there's such as thing as "rape".
