Swami said:

I contend that it is socially irresponsible (and selfish) to have more than two children in today's world whether you can afford them or not due to the negative impact on our shrinking resources.

---

obfuscatelesol said:

I was reading this theory that the UN decided to create a virus to take care of this overpopulization problem: thus, AIDS was created (by taking a virus from a sheep and one from a cow and combining them). I think it was in a video called the Strecker Memorandum by a Dr. Strecker. I don't believe this, but it's interesting (and horrible). Anyway, I also read that if there gets to be 11-12 billion people our environment won't be able to handle it and life on the planet will just die, or wish it were dead. We may be taking up more space then ever, but at least we're doing a good job of killing all the other species off- in 1900 there were around 30 million species, in 1990 there were 15 million.

---

Swami said:

I contend that it is socially irresponsible (and selfish) to have more than two children in today's world whether you can afford them or not due to the negative impact on our shrinking resources.

---

Swami said:

I contend that it is socially irresponsible (and selfish) to have more than two children in today's world whether you can afford them or not due to the negative impact on our shrinking resources.

---

SpringChickita said:

GazzBut said:

High infant mortality rates coupled with a fear of not being cared for in old age is what motivates people in the third world to have many kids, not ignorance of birth control.

---

Correct. A high infant mortality rate due to AIDS and other diseases.

Most of the people having these children, don't even make it to "old age". They die long before that of starvation, malnutrition, AIDS, and other diseases.

Besides that, most of the children suffering in Africa are orphans, being raised by various family members, or living on their own.

And I didn't say that they were "ignorant" of birth control. Quite the contrary.

We have tons of volunteers, through the Peace Corp and other such organizations, as well as the Red Cross, over there teaching these people everything one needs to know about birth control. And giving out free condoms.

No, they are not ignorant. They just refuse to apply the knowledge and tools given to them to protect themselves.

In my opinion, what motivates them is not high infant mortality rate, or fear of not being taken care of. It is pleasure.

Think about it. These people have no home, no food, no clothes, no fresh water, no drugs, no nothing to derive any sense of pleasure or comfort.

But the one thing they do have is sex. The ability to breed like rabbits, just to get their rocks off for that one moment of pleasure.

And boy, do they ever take advantage of it, huh?

Do I blame them? No. I can't imagine how horrible it would be to live in those conditions, under those circumstances. I understand that they find temporary pleasure and comfort in the act of sex. And I don't blame them for it.

I do blame them, however, for not taking advantage of the knowledge and tools given to them. The lives of these people would be *somewhat* improved, if they had less children to feed, and if their genitalia wasn't rotting off from the STD's that they spread among eachother.

It is an epidemic that could be easily thwarted, with condoms and knowledge as weapons. They have both of these.

There is no excuse for stupidity.

---

truekimbo2 said:

do we have enough food to feed the whole world over?

i'd say almost certainly if we worked together with the european union and maybe some other cool countries.  but i'd say that doesn't really matter, the whole world has enough food to feed everyone. its not a matter of enough food, its distibution and wasting energy making foods that aren't as energy/cost efficent.

---

Yes, we definitely have enough food to feed the whole world, and the reason we don't is first of all because this thing we named Economy doesn't let us do so: you can imagine that giving millions of tons of food out for free could easily lead to some kind of economic crisis...who would pay all the people that worked their asses off to cultivate all of it?? haha, politicians, government, taxes you say? come on we're a bunch of greedy bastards.

truekimbo2 said:

do we have enough food to feed the whole world over?

i'd say almost certainly if we worked together with the european union and maybe some other cool countries.  but i'd say that doesn't really matter, the whole world has enough food to feed everyone. its not a matter of enough food, its distibution and wasting energy making foods that aren't as energy/cost efficent.

---

Yes, we definitely have enough food to feed the whole world, and the reason we don't is first of all because this thing we named Economy doesn't let us do so: you can imagine that giving millions of tons of food out for free could easily lead to some kind of economic crisis...who would pay all the people that worked their asses off to cultivate all of it?? haha, politicians, government, taxes you say? come on we're a bunch of greedy bastards.

This thread could be placed more in the category of politics and law, cuz hunger  is a political problem. But at the same time, politics do put some kind of barrier to worldwide spiritual evolution, IMO

Swami said:

hemp could solve world hunger

If universally smoked, could increase the munchies thus decreasing the world's critical supply of Doritos.

---