Why do DCUMs claim "overpopulation"...
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
You live completely self sufficient on your farm? Your own private water source and sanitizion system? Your own electricity? Your own clothing, fabric, dyes? Where does the runoff from your farm go? Do you have your own air, or is your air shared with non-family members? Will the offspring created by all your children (and their children's children, and their children's children's children, and so forth) all live on your farm forever, all autonomous? |
maril332
Member Offline
Member Offline
Surely that isn't true, but the whole point of the world is not to have everyone separate. I think we can coexist. |
Anonymous
| The white-guilt crowd who cries "Overpopulation!!" when a, say, Irish Catholic family wants to have more than 2 kids are the same people who welcome illegals and their brood of 4+ who will drain our services in no time flat. |
Anonymous
But then they walk across our southern border and stay... |
Anonymous
The first of your ancestors to arrive in America - do you have a scanned copy of their immigration papers per chance? |
Anonymous
White guilt and concern for overpopulation are two entirely different things. I have no white guilt. But I am concerned about overpopulation. And I think it is a concern for everyone -- not just white people or brown people or rich people or poor people. I would never say that it's okay for a family in another part of the world to have 6 kids but it's not okay for an American family to have 6 kids. And in fact, I am a firm supporter in making birth control available to women everywhere, because in many parts of the world women have a lot of children because they do not have access to birth control and/or do not have sufficient control over their own reproduction. I would also argue that it is the conservative Christians who constantly bemoan so-called "illegals" and their "broods" but consistently work against making birth control more readily available in places like South America, Africa, et cetera. And specifically, the Catholic Church has blocked efforts in developing countries to make contraception available to women. |
Anonymous
The world doesn't need anymore whiteys further infecting the world population with their satanic ways. We don't need anymore crimes against humanity and the theft, rape and pillage of other peoples' property and resources. |
Anonymous
I find your statement ironic as well because there was a time in this country when people were complaining about the overwhelming numbers of Irish immigrants and their "broods" coming into this country and draining resources. |
maril332
Member Offline
Member Offline
| Ok, so lets say birth control is readily available. What about those who just want to have large families? |
Anonymous
I don't like what the PP above said, but your comments aren't helpful either. The Irish happen to be a group of white people who were, over centuries, the victims of theft, rape and pillage. Do we have to bring the victim game into this discussion? No, it isn't that one group should be allowed to have many children but others not. It is that we ALL should be concerned about overpopulation, about responsible family planning, et cetera. It doesn't matter if it's rich people or poor people or brown people or white people -- when the numbers get to a point where the diminishing fossil fuels no longer make it possible to feed those numbers, we all suffer. We need to be concerned about overpopulation while at the same time working to alternatives to fossil fuels, making sure we preserve the drinking water sources we have. I am a firm believer that any group of any color or any race will rape and pillage if they have the power, means and incentive to do so. It is a human failing, not a failing specific to one race. The answer isn't abolishing one race of people. the answer is to make sure we don't deplete the resources to such an extent that civilization devolves into constant war and hostility. And at different points in history, different groups have done so. In fact, it breaks down even further -- sometimes a group will oppress another group of the same race for reasons of tribal affiliation or class. None of that changes the fact that massive overpopulation combined with diminishing fossil fuels is a problem. |
Anonymous
It's irresponsible. Three kids, that's one thing. But beyond that, I do believe it is irresponsible. |
Anonymous
+1. That's hilarious. 100 years ago the "Dirty Irish" were an absolute scourge. |
Anonymous
| Eh, the vast majority of the world's growth/birth rate is coming from the developing world. I'm not saying its a good idea for every family here to have six kids, but to act like a family who wants 4+ kids is draining the world of its resources is so incorrect it's funny. |
Anonymous
In what way? Are families with 4+ kids not somehow subject to basic mathematics? If each of those four kids has four of their own, and each of those decides to have four.... That's a lot more kids than if two each had two and so on. To say that the problem of overpopulation is solely that of the developing world is incredibly ignorant. For one thing your average American uses far more resources, on just about every level than does someone in the developing world - even if you live on a totally self-sufficient farm (you dig your own well, septic field, and build your own roads, phone and cable lines? You grow your own flax and spin it into yarn and weave your own cloth?....) , there's zero guarantee that your children will choose the same, low impact lifestyle. To pretend that the reproductive choices and health care available to women in the US at all relates to those available to women in developing nations is offensive. They're frequently denied the ability to use birth control, when it's even available, and due to a lack of available medical care, they're far more likely to lose children to all sorts of diseases. Your decision large family has every bit as much impact as does large families elsewhere. |
maril332
Member Offline
Member Offline
But who says that is likely to happen? That logic doesn't make sense. You could be from a small family (having only 2 sibs) and then decide to have 12 kids. Whereas someone's 6 kids could have 1 kid each and still have less that the kids from the small family had combined. Isn't it more likely that children raised with a HUGE family (im talking Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar here) will grow up to only have 2 or 3. I believe that Im the person the OP was talking about. I have 5 kids and we are considering a 6th. Both of us are from a smaller family. DH was an only and I have 1 sib. |