Register | Login
United States Coast Guard Forums and Information
The World's Premiere Source for United States Coast Guard. Information and resources about the USCG, rules, regulations, policy, pay, jobs, forms, pay, locations, and more. auxiliary,faq,facts,manuals,boating rules,boating regulations,boating safety,inflatable boats, scuba diving,boating magazines,travel,boats,boat talk,boaters,boats for sale,boating information,survey,yacht,cruising,cruiser,sea,ocean,tide,current,weather,marine,ships,inflatables,fishing,fisherman,cutter,boat navigation,wind,chart,navigator,powerboat,sailboat,sailing,opinion The World's Premiere Source for United States Coast Guard. Information and resources about the USCG, rules, regulations, policy, pay, jobs, forms, pay, locations, and more. auxiliary,faq,facts,manuals,boating rules,boating regulations,boating safety,inflatable boats, scuba diving,boating magazines,travel,boats,boat talk,boaters,boats for sale,boating information,survey,yacht,cruising,cruiser,sea,ocean,tide,current,weather,marine,ships,inflatables,fishing,fisherman,cutter,boat navigation,wind,chart,navigator,powerboat,sailboat,sailing,opinion The World's Premiere Source for United States Coast Guard. Information and resources about the USCG, rules, regulations, policy, pay, jobs, forms, pay, locations, and more. auxiliary,faq,facts,manuals,boating rules,boating regulations,boating safety,inflatable boats, scuba diving,boating magazines,travel,boats,boat talk,boaters,boats for sale,boating information,survey,yacht,cruising,cruiser,sea,ocean,tide,current,weather,marine,ships,inflatables,fishing,fisherman,cutter,boat navigation,wind,chart,navigator,powerboat,sailboat,sailing,opinion The World's Premiere Source for United States Coast Guard. Information and resources about the USCG, rules, regulations, policy, pay, jobs, forms, pay, locations, and more. auxiliary,faq,facts,manuals,boating rules,boating regulations,boating safety,,inflatable boats, scuba diving,boating magazines,travel,boats,boat talk,boaters,boats for sale,boating information,survey,yacht,cruising,cruiser,sea,ocean,tide,current,weather,marine,ships,inflatables,fishing,fisherman,cutter,boat navigation,wind,chart,navigator,powerboat,sailboat,sailing,opinion The World's Premiere Source for United States Coast Guard. Information and resources about the USCG, rules, regulations, policy, pay, jobs, forms, pay, locations, and more. auxiliary,faq,facts,manuals,boating rules,boating regulations,boating safety,,inflatable boats, scuba diving,boating magazines,travel,boats,boat talk,boaters,boats for sale,boating information,survey,yacht,cruising,cruiser,sea,ocean,tide,current,weather,marine,ships,inflatables,fishing,fisherman,cutter,boat navigation,wind,chart,navigator,powerboat,sailboat,sailing,opinion The World's Premiere Source for United States Coast Guard. Information and resources about the USCG, rules, regulations, policy, pay, jobs, forms, pay, locations, and more. auxiliary,faq,facts,manuals,boating rules,boating regulations,boating safety,inflatable boats, scuba diving,boating magazines,travel,boats,boat talk,boaters,boats for sale,boating information,survey,yacht,cruising,cruiser,sea,ocean,tide,current,weather,marine,ships,inflatables,fishing,fisherman,cutter,boat navigation,wind,chart,navigator,powerboat,sailboat,sailing,opinion The World's Premiere Source for United States Coast Guard. Information and resources about the USCG, rules, regulations, policy, pay, jobs, forms, pay, locations, and more. auxiliary,faq,facts,manuals,boating rules,boating regulations,boating safety,inflatable boats, scuba diving,boating magazines,travel,boats,boat talk,boaters,boats for sale,boating information,survey,yacht,cruising,cruiser,sea,ocean,tide,current,weather,marine,ships,inflatables,fishing,fisherman,cutter,boat navigation,wind,chart,navigator,powerboat,sailboat,sailing,opinion The World's Premiere Source for United States Coast Guard. Information and resources about the USCG, rules, regulations, policy, pay, jobs, forms, pay, locations, and more. auxiliary,faq,facts,manuals,boating rules,boating regulations,boating safety,inflatable boats, scuba diving,boating magazines,travel,boats,boat talk,boaters,boats for sale,boating information,survey,cruising,cruiser,sea,ocean,tide,current,weather,marine,ships,inflatables,fishing,fisherman,cutter,boat navigation,wind,chart,navigator,powerboat,sailboat,sailing,opinion The World's Premiere Source for United States. Information and resources about the USCG, rules, regulations, policy, pay, jobs, forms, pay, locations, and more. auxiliary,faq,facts,manuals,boating rules,boating regulations,boating safety,inflatable boats, scuba diving,boating magazines,boats,boat talk,boaters,boats for sale,boating information,survey,cruising,cruiser,sea,ocean,tide,current,weather,marine,ships,inflatables,fishing,fisherman,cutter,boat navigation,wind,chart,navigator,powerboat,sailboat,sailing,opinion
Are We Prepared as World Population is Set to Breach 7 Billion Soon?
Last Post 25 Jun 2012 09:37 AM by janelleyfish. 32 Replies.
Printer Friendly
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
Sort:
PrevPrev NextNext
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 1 of 212 > >>
Author Messages
chuklesUser is Offline
Trusted Member / Administrator
Moderator
Moderator
Send Private Message
Posts:2907
chukles

--
10 Aug 2011 09:00 AM
    http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/189...y-2050.htm

    Wow, the population of the world has doubled in the last 50 years! This poses two questions,

    1. Can the worlds resources handle what the article suggests?

    2. What can we do now to help avert a disaster if the world cannot handle it?
    I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted Coastie, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.
    MasterGuns2077User is Offline
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:425
    MasterGuns2077

    --
    10 Aug 2011 09:28 AM
    I read somewhere (can't remember where, my interwebbing is vast and usually thoughtless) that the Earth wouldn't have any problem handling a population far in excess of what it is today. There is plenty of fertile farmland, famine/disease resistant plants, industrialized animal processing, global transportation, etc. The Earth isn't the problem. It's resource mismanagement by irresponsible governments (like the ones in most developing nations) that leads to population explosions (mini-bombs) being such a problem. It doesn't help that in some countries you can't PAY someone to use contraceptives because of religious preferences or...ummm..."preference" preferences. I read an interview once with an African truck driver who refused to use a condom when he slept with truck stop hookers because he didn't like them. He plainly stated that he couldn't care less about AIDS or babies, he was fatalistic to the point where he figured, if this was the last chance he had to sleep with a woman, why not enjoy it the way he wanted to enjoy it?

    These are issues I don't see ever being resolved for a plethora of reasons.

    As for solutions, I'm with Stephen Hawking... SPACE COLONIZATION!!!! The Moon, Mars, whatever! Sure, it'll take a couple centuries, but lets go ahead and get started! I want the 51st state to be a nice patch of Moondust!
    Your passion for what you do will set you free.
    janelleyfishUser is Offline
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:329
    janelleyfish

    --
    10 Aug 2011 11:05 AM
    I agree that the Earth isn't the problem...but humans are. The Earth will be just fine - it was here before we were. Humans are the only species to ever change landscapes the way we have. I don't believe there is enough fertile farmland left, and furthermore, there aren't enough farmers! The average age of a farmer in North America is near retirement, and young people aren't going into farming anymore because it doesn't pay. Pretty soon there will be no one left to grow food for the rest of us...and this is a huge problem. I think there needs to be incentives to go into farming...sort of like when governments would give out land to people to move west back in the day. The world's resources are divided up completely disproportionate to population. Developed countries, specifically North Americans, need to change their lifestyles to account for this. It is unfair to tell developing nations that they can't have the same luxuries we enjoy, just because we've eaten more than our share of the pie. And furthermore, some countries complain that they won't reduce their carbon emissions until China/India does...but we have to remember that one of the reasons China and India's emissions are high is because North Americans moved all of our industrial plants there! So it is because of our consumerism anyways... Education is the only way to change the world...and I believe too many people think that their actions don't affect people in the rest of the world (I recommend that everyone complete a water consumption calculator exercise). And people can argue that the population boom isn't happening in developed nations, but that just means that women need to be educated in the developing countries. It has been proven that as a woman's education increases, the number of children she has decreases. I don't know...I have MANY thoughts on this subject, but I won't voice them all here. I currently teach in the College of Sustainability at the university I am at, and I get really riled up about this topic. I really think that the first thing to run out will be fresh water. Whoever said that water will be the new oil is correct, I believe. Water will become rationed and very expensive, like it currently is in many developing countries (watch the movie FLOW if you're at all interested in this...it is heartbreaking). Also, it has been predicted that there will be no "real" seafood left by the 2050 mark due to over-fishing and global increases in ocean temperatures (which then increase ocean acidity). The only seafood left will be through aquaculture...which has plenty of its own issues. One of the reasons I got into oceanography... And I won't even go into all of the problems with our current methods of mass food production...all I will say is that it is VERY scary when only 3 companies control our ENTIRE food supply...there are plenty of videos and articles on that subject too, if you're interested. I'm a huge proponent of the local food movement.
    janelleyfishUser is Offline
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:329
    janelleyfish

    --
    10 Aug 2011 11:11 AM
    P.S. - There are currently things being done about the rape situation in Africa. Through education and new advances in anti-rape technology, rape will hopefully decrease in Africa. It is a huge problem right now, and women can do nothing about it. A doctor invented a device that is inserted into women, and if she is raped, then it clamps onto the man's penis (and it is very painful, it has teeth that dig into skin), and he can not remove it himself. I have a friend who is working on this in Africa. To get it removed, he must seek medical help...and when he does, he will be charged with rape and punished appropriately. Hopefully it will scare most men away from raping women, given that they can't possibly know what women have these devices.
    janelleyfishUser is Offline
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:329
    janelleyfish

    --
    10 Aug 2011 11:12 AM
    I'd also like to point out that the countries that have the largest populations have the smallest share of the world's resources.
    chuklesUser is Offline
    Trusted Member / Administrator
    Moderator
    Moderator
    Send Private Message
    Posts:2907
    chukles

    --
    10 Aug 2011 11:13 AM
    To very awesome posts on this topic. A good port/report is beginning! Chime in! What do you think?
    I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted Coastie, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.
    janelleyfishUser is Offline
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:329
    janelleyfish

    --
    10 Aug 2011 11:15 AM
    Well, besides China.
    janelleyfishUser is Offline
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:329
    janelleyfish

    --
    10 Aug 2011 11:16 AM
    http://www.worldmapper.org/display....lected=322

    I really love this map. It shows everything so well.
    janelleyfishUser is Offline
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:329
    janelleyfish

    --
    10 Aug 2011 11:17 AM
    The ecological footprint is a measure of the area needed to support a population’s lifestyle. This includes the consumption of food, fuel, wood, and fibres. Pollution, such as carbon dioxide emissions, is also counted as part of the footprint.

    The United States, China and India have the largest ecological footprints. Without knowing population size we cannot understand what this means about individuals’ ecological demands. Large populations live in China and India. In both territories resource use is below the world average. The per person footprint in the United States is almost five times the world average, and almost ten times what would be sustainable.
    janelleyfishUser is Offline
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:329
    janelleyfish

    --
    10 Aug 2011 11:18 AM
    When you take population size into account, China and India are still below the world's average in terms of resource consumption. This leaves only the US.
    MasterGuns2077User is Offline
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:425
    MasterGuns2077

    --
    10 Aug 2011 05:15 PM
    I'm on board with the U.S. doing its part, but to say that those governments don't hold some fault for their populations starving doesn't make much sense to me. Care to explain?
    If our own ridiculous mismanagement is at fault, part of that fault lies in what we have created. What we have, our lifestyles, have become something of envy for many in developing nations like China and India. While they may not want to be "Western" culturally, man of them want to drive the big cars, keep their houses at 72 degrees, eat twice as much as they need. That's what prosperity has become defined by. They want to live like we do, like kings, without a care for anything. So we turn around and self-righteously proclaim to them "you have to stop, you're killing the environment?" I agree with you there, we can't do it. However, if we can't do it with them, how can we expect to do it with our own citizens?


    I read a great book about the fisheries, "Hooked", absolutely phenomenal. That is a truly scary problem, but I've heard plenty of people talk about aquaculture as the thing that will save fisheries, not spell their end.



    Sounds like this planet is screwed. Let's start packing our bags for the Moon then! Hope someone figures out terraforming soon.
    Your passion for what you do will set you free.
    janelleyfishUser is Offline
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:329
    janelleyfish

    --
    10 Aug 2011 08:18 PM
    You have to remember that most developing nations have very few options. Many are in debt to the World Bank, which only complicates many of their resource issues. I'm not sure what you mean about governments not taking responsibility for starving citizens. Of course no government wants to see their citizens starve...but these countries do not have the resources to do anything about it. The privilege of living in a developed nation means that you and I have options - options for both basic human right and luxuries. Options that most take for granted.

    My point was that our definition of prosperity is the root of the problem. We are a consumer culture. We have equated material wealth with happiness. This is also the root of all of our current and impending resource problems. Do you know how much water it takes to create a plastic bottle? A LOT. We are a "throw-away" nation. For example, I will never drink bottled water, because it is so wasteful. We live in a place where we are able to drink tap water for free, and that might not always be a luxury we enjoy. I think we need to curtail our own citizens' resource consumption first, before we can even think about saying anything to any other country. As the most powerful nation in the world, the US has a responsibility to lead by example. Many countries resent the US for the way we over-consume, and will not change their ways until we do. As the country with the largest footprint, the US needs to step up and make changes at home...and I believe then that other countries will follow. We HAVE to do it with our own citizens...that's where it should start, always.

    Many people think all of the other countries, developing or not, are the problem, when in fact, the US is the biggest problem. They just don't want to see it, because they are very comfortable with the life they've become accustomed to. Passing the blame is always easier, because people don't want to think they're doing anything wrong. There are many, many examples of how are consumerism has unnecessarily increased. I'll just give you one. Fifty years ago the average size of a house in North America was less than half the size one is today. Many people lived in the cities, in smaller houses. People built up instead of out. People don't NEED more space now...they just WANT bigger houses, because bigger houses mean success. So, running out of space in the cities, people began building out instead of up. Farmland was plowed down and suburbia was born. Gated communities and subdivisions took over, and these new, bigger houses were farther away from the cities - farther away from shopping, doctors, and work. So, people had to drive more, which increased pollution and emissions. Eventually, much of the area inbetween subdivisions and the city turned into strip malls so that stores would be closer to the houses. More land was turned into parking lots. But everything was still far enough away from each other that you had to drive to get anywhere. You all know what I'm talking about...you've all seen an area like this. Now, people live in huge houses with much more space than they need, further away from places they need to get to, and further away from people. The sense of community is completely gone, which means that people do not feel accountable for anyone other than themselves...which turns into a positive feedback loop for destructive behavior (over-consumption, resource depletion, etc.). There are plenty of books and videos on this subject as well, if you're interested.

    You can preserve a species through aquaculture (so that they will not go extinct), but that's very different than preserving the integrity of the ecosystem. It's the difference between protecting only one species and ecosystem-based management, which protects the entire food chain of that species. And not all species can be sustained through aquaculture. Sharks, for example, are currently in a grave situation due to illegal finning. They catch sharks, cut off their fins, and then throw the body overboard (while still alive)...it's a HUGE market, and the fins are used for shark fin soup in Asia. It's an expensive delicacy that doesn't actually add any taste to the soup, it only changes the texture of the soup. Shark populations have declined worldwide by more than 90% in recent years. The removal of nearly all of the top predators from the ocean is having detrimental effects on food webs ocean-wide - it's the equivalent of removing 90% of humans from land. Humans are completely changing the dynamic of predator-prey interactions in the ocean by this act alone. And humans depend on the ocean for a lot more than they think...but continue to drastically change it without having any idea as to how their actions impact the ocean long-term. There are countless other examples I could give of this, but I like the shark one the best. Watch the documentary "Sharkwater" if you want to learn more - it is excellent. The book "Cod" is also another great example of a fishery collapse that will likely never turn around.

    Iceman1978User is Offline
    New Member
    New Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:48
    Iceman1978

    --
    11 Aug 2011 01:14 PM
    I actually wrote about this when I was in college. We studied demographics and sociology in one of my classes. There was also a book by Ben Wattenberg called Fewer: How the Demography of Depopulation Will Shape Our Future that was very interesting.

    There are four (five depending on who you talk to) stages of industrial development.

    Stage One – Pre-Industrial Society: In a pre-industrial society, growth patterns are characterized by low rates of food production per acre of farmland, a lack of medical or industrial technology, and a lack of societal organization and public services. Societies such as these existed for the whole of human history and were characterized by high birth rates, high death rates, high infant mortality, and low life expectancy. Population growth patterns in the pre-industrial world also fluctuated rapidly based upon natural disasters, famines, war, and disease outbreaks. People who lived in these kinds of societies tended to have large families since there was a heavy reliance on agriculture. Having a large number of children was not only necessary for day-to-day family life, but was also looked at as a form of insurance for old age. In societies such as these, birth rates would have remained high even if contraceptives were available.

    Stage Two - Industrial Development: As a nation begins to develop industry, more people migrate from the countryside and move to cities where factories, and better-paying jobs, are located. These changes first began to take place in Europe during the eighteenth century, and later took hold in the United States in the nineteenth. While birth rates began to decline early on, declines in death rates didn’t begin until the early nineteenth century when advances were made in medical technology. When birth rates remain relatively high, and death rates begin to fall, the population will grow at a rapid pace as the gap between birth and death rates grows larger. This is what brought about the population explosion of the past one-hundred fifty years that remains an issue of concern to demographers and economists. Nations such as Afghanistan, Yemen, Bhutan and large sections of Sub-Saharan Africa are still in this stage of development.

    Eventually however, birth rates will begin to decline as society becomes more urbanized. While not limited to these factors, these are two of the main reasons this will take place:

    -The first factor is improvements in the food supply brought about by higher production levels in agriculture, and more efficient methods of transportation to bring food into the cities.
    -The second will be from improvement in medical technology, greater access to public health, the development of vaccinations, and better care for children and the elderly. Increased awareness of hygiene, food safety and food borne illnesses will also play a role.

    Another noticeable characteristic of this stage in development will be changes in the demographic structure of the population. Since stage one has high rates of infant mortality, the decline in stage two will mean children have a greater chance of survival past the age of five. This will result in a younger society and will mean a larger portion of the population is under the age of fifteen. On a population pyramid, the shape will almost resemble a perfect triangle. As this demographic group reaches child-bearing age, you will see a population explosion assuming that birth rates remain the same.

    Stage Three - Industrial & Technological Advancement: When a society moves into stage three, they will have a more stabilized population growth pattern after birth rates begin to decline. There are many nations which fall into this category. Sections of East Asia, the Middle East, India, and North Africa currently fall into this category. Although demographers disagree on the various factors, and the extent to which they matter, they will occur for the following reasons:

    -As people living in rural areas have greater access to medical technology and social safety nets, they begin to realize that they don’t necessarily need a large number of children to ensure survival in old age. They will also be switching to more technologically advanced farming methods and will rely more on machinery.
    -When people move into the city there are changes in the value structure placed on having large families. Child care is also more expensive in an urban setting, so there is an economic incentive not to have very many children.
    -Compulsory school attendance laws and access to higher education will also increase the cost of raising children. With the introduction of child-labor laws, people will also no longer be able to have children performing work in factories or farms.
    -Improvements in contraceptives and the availability of birth control pills have played a major factor in the declining birth rates. Look to the nations of Western Europe as an example of this.
    -Finally, the education of women will lead to lower fertility rates. Across the board, statistics show that regardless of the society in which one lives; the fertility rates will decline as women become more educated.

    In this stage, the shape of the population pyramid will begin to resemble an elongated balloon. The youth population begins to decline as a percentage of the population, while the percentage of those in the work force grows. During this time frame, the society can benefit economically when there is less of a youth dependency, and an increase in the ratio between those in the work force and those who are retired. This is what’s known as the demographic dividend, which the United States experienced during the baby boom of the fifties and sixties. If the factors listed above are not allowed to play out however, the birth rates may remain high. Under these circumstances, the society will be unable to move into stage four and will be stuck in what’s known as a demographic trap.

    Stage Four - The Modern Era: By this stage of development a nation has reached a stage of low death rates and low birth rates. Population growth is low and stable at this point. It is usually during this stage of development that society has mechanisms in place which will care for people in their old age, such as Social Security programs, which will further reduce the need to have large families. It is also during this stage of development that it will become prohibitively expensive for people to have large families if they still wish to enjoy a middle class lifestyle. The United States, Western Europe, Japan, Australia and Canada are currently at this stage of development. I also believe that this will be the direction we can expect from China and India as well as the nations of Latin America.

    Stage Five – De-Industrialization & the Information Age: Demographers still have disagreements on whether or not there is a stage five in the growth model. While some believe that it will stop at stage four, others believe that population growth patterns will continue to change when birth rates fall below death rates and lead to a population decline. Proponents of this theory argue that population decline will occur when the economy moves away from heavy manufacturing and more towards information-based industries and a service-sector economy. This seemed to be the case with the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Japan and Hong Kong. It was different with the former Soviet Union though, in that the decline in population growth occurred over a short period of time as hundreds of thousands emigrated out of Russia following the collapse of the USSR, and the increasing death rate in the male population. Diseases such as obesity and/or diabetes can also be a contributor when added to the existing death rates.

    Eventually this will also occur in China. During the late sixties and early seventies, the Chinese government implemented the one-child policy. The goal was to stabilize and eventually decrease the population of China to prevent food shortages. An unintended consequence of this policy was that it led to a male-majority proceeding generation. Traditional values at that time dictated that you would rather have a male child than a female child since you were more likely to be cared for in your old age. In having a generation that is mostly male, and a corresponding shortage of women, it will not only mean millions of young men who will be unable to get married, but will also result in a drastic reduction in the population as more remain single and without children.
    GandlerUser is Offline
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:220
    Gandler

    --
    06 Feb 2012 05:40 AM
    I think one of the most intelligent was laws ever was China's one-child per couple law.
    In a couple hundred years the world will be so overpopulated that people will be killing each other just to eat.
    Overpopulation will likely cause the next major war.
    I think every country should have a law like this. I think of myself as a libertarian so I find this rationale hard to self-justify. But I put it to myself this way: people reproducing too much causes overpopulation which hinders on everyone's freedom.
    Old Guard2User is Offline
    Moderator / Trusted Member
    Forum Supreme!
    Forum Supreme!
    Send Private Message
    Posts:14305
    Old Guard2

    --
    06 Feb 2012 08:00 AM
    I am an only child. My father is an only child. My son is an only child, for me. My ex did have another child with his 2nd wife. I have 3 cousins, each of them are only children. The much older generations in our family proliferated like bunnies but they are Irish Catholic and almost 100 years ago, that was the norm and expected! I don't know if I agree with only one child... but families like the Duggars, I have no respect for that at all.
    Sector NY, Staten Island
    MasterGuns2077User is Offline
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:425
    MasterGuns2077

    --
    06 Feb 2012 08:29 AM
    Wouldn't be so bad if the one child laws didn't lead to rampant infanticide, or overcrowded orphanages.
    Your passion for what you do will set you free.
    Old Guard2User is Offline
    Moderator / Trusted Member
    Forum Supreme!
    Forum Supreme!
    Send Private Message
    Posts:14305
    Old Guard2

    --
    06 Feb 2012 09:36 AM
    Which is exactly the problem in China. A baby girl is born, often she is murdered by her family. A child is born with an imperfection, dump it in an orphanage, no longer that parents burden they can try again for a perfect child. It always looks good on paper, rarely works in real time.
    Sector NY, Staten Island
    captkyguyUser is Offline
    Trusted Member
    Senior Member
    Senior Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:6877
    captkyguy

    --
    07 Feb 2012 12:23 AM
    Education is key...the ugly results of the one child law are dead wrong, but to not practice birth control and to just have kids after kids to the point you need special donations and assistance to help care and feed them, or worse to have kids for a little more welfare money, are wrong as well.

    We were also told to "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth".
    I want to finally set it free, So show me how to see what Your mercy sees, Help me now to give what You gave to me...Forgiveness, Forgiveness
    GandlerUser is Offline
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:220
    Gandler

    --
    07 Feb 2012 03:48 AM

    Posted By captkyguy on 07 Feb 2012 12:23 AM
    Education is key...the ugly results of the one child law are dead wrong, but to not practice birth control and to just have kids after kids to the point you need special donations and assistance to help care and feed them, or worse to have kids for a little more welfare money, are wrong as well.

    We were also told to "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth".


    I agree education is key. but at the same time some people (even well educated people) just let their natural urges get the better of their judgement.
    If the population growth rate does not slow significantly then laws like that are inevitable in all countries its just a matter of time.
    there are many scifi books focusing on what will happen in the future with the current population growth. I know fiction books are not a good source, but it shows some theories on how the governments will control reproduction. And many times scifi books (especially the ones written by actual scientists) are uncannily good at predicting how the world will operate 50 years down the line (look at some of the ones from the 40s and 50s).
    Iceman1978User is Offline
    New Member
    New Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:48
    Iceman1978

    --
    20 Feb 2012 02:54 PM

    Posted By Old Guard2 on 06 Feb 2012 08:00 AM
    I am an only child. My father is an only child. My son is an only child, for me. My ex did have another child with his 2nd wife. I have 3 cousins, each of them are only children. The much older generations in our family proliferated like bunnies but they are Irish Catholic and almost 100 years ago, that was the norm and expected! I don't know if I agree with only one child... but families like the Duggars, I have no respect for that at all.


    I actually find the Duggars to be quite selfish and hypocritical. Because of their own desire to breed like rabbits, their oldest children have likely spent most of their childhood doing chores, babysitting, cleaning, cooking, etc. I have to wonder if they ever had free time to themselves to enjoy being a kid.

    In addition to that aspect, the wife has been playing Russian roulette with her life since, I'd say, the eighth pregnancy? The human body isn't meant to endure going through child birth after child birth. I wonder if mom and dad have ever sat down and asked themselves what would happen to their children if mom were to have complications during labor and possibly die?

    Then there are those who say we shouldn't attack or criticize them for their choices. Well, yes, we can, and I believe we should. Their lifestyle is not something that should be celebrated or condoned. There are thousands of children in this country who are abused, neglected and would be better off if they could be adopted into a loving home. Why didn't the Duggars choose to adopt? Have a few that are biologically yours, but then adopt children who are in need of a good home. Also, people think of them as this family that's devoted to religion and, from what I understand, they don't allow their children to watch TV because of the raunchy programming. Yet somehow they seem to have no moral qualms about parading their family on TV like a circus act.

    They're not as bad as "Octomom". At least the Duggars aren't living off the taxpayers.

    Jimmy Kimmel had a video clip of octomom when she went into labor that was quite interesting.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvylJNrINBo
    Old Guard2User is Offline
    Moderator / Trusted Member
    Forum Supreme!
    Forum Supreme!
    Send Private Message
    Posts:14305
    Old Guard2

    --
    20 Feb 2012 03:10 PM
    I did know a family when we were stationed in Kodiak oh so many years ago... I don't remember the exact number, but 12 played into it. He was a Commander... she was either pregnant with #12 or they had 12 and she was pregnant with #13 when I was pregnant with my son. So that was 23 years ago. They lived in on base housing. They took over the entire 2nd floor of a four-plex home. It gave them 6 bedrooms, 2 full kitchens, 2 washing machines, 2 dryers, 2 full bathrooms... Then can you imagine the cost of relocating that family! 14/15 people when you count mom & dad. That to me is an extreme that is just not necessary! But no one has the right to tell them to stop, so they had number 12 or 13. I don't know if they had more or not, one of our families transfered, who remembers which one first.
    Sector NY, Staten Island
    newmsUser is Offline
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:161
    newms

    --
    20 Feb 2012 03:48 PM

    Posted By Iceman1978 on 20 Feb 2012 02:54 PM

    They're not as bad as "Octomom". At least the Duggars aren't living off the taxpayers.

    Jimmy Kimmel had a video clip of octomom when she went into labor that was quite interesting.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvylJNrINBo


    Haha - I didn't know what to expect. That was a good laugh.

    But seriously, there should be no reason that a child in this country should sleep in an orphanage. Folks looking to become parents should always consider adopting or fostering before taking the plunge with a child of their own.
    newms! PATFORSWA
    GandlerUser is Offline
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:220
    Gandler

    --
    22 Feb 2012 03:12 AM

    Posted By Iceman1978 on 20 Feb 2012 02:54 PM

    Posted By Old Guard2 on 06 Feb 2012 08:00 AM
    I am an only child. My father is an only child. My son is an only child, for me. My ex did have another child with his 2nd wife. I have 3 cousins, each of them are only children. The much older generations in our family proliferated like bunnies but they are Irish Catholic and almost 100 years ago, that was the norm and expected! I don't know if I agree with only one child... but families like the Duggars, I have no respect for that at all.


    I actually find the Duggars to be quite selfish and hypocritical. Because of their own desire to breed like rabbits, their oldest children have likely spent most of their childhood doing chores, babysitting, cleaning, cooking, etc. I have to wonder if they ever had free time to themselves to enjoy being a kid.

    In addition to that aspect, the wife has been playing Russian roulette with her life since, I'd say, the eighth pregnancy? The human body isn't meant to endure going through child birth after child birth. I wonder if mom and dad have ever sat down and asked themselves what would happen to their children if mom were to have complications during labor and possibly die?

    Then there are those who say we shouldn't attack or criticize them for their choices. Well, yes, we can, and I believe we should. Their lifestyle is not something that should be celebrated or condoned. There are thousands of children in this country who are abused, neglected and would be better off if they could be adopted into a loving home. Why didn't the Duggars choose to adopt? Have a few that are biologically yours, but then adopt children who are in need of a good home. Also, people think of them as this family that's devoted to religion and, from what I understand, they don't allow their children to watch TV because of the raunchy programming. Yet somehow they seem to have no moral qualms about parading their family on TV like a circus act.

    They're not as bad as "Octomom". At least the Duggars aren't living off the taxpayers.

    Jimmy Kimmel had a video clip of octomom when she went into labor that was quite interesting.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvylJNrINBo

    that was not her fault though. She got pregnant with 8 babies at once. That is out of her control. Its not like she got pregnant 8 times with the intent of burdening tax payers.
    Old Guard2User is Offline
    Moderator / Trusted Member
    Forum Supreme!
    Forum Supreme!
    Send Private Message
    Posts:14305
    Old Guard2

    --
    22 Feb 2012 06:46 AM
    She had 8 embryos implanted... That was intentional! If she truly wanted another child she could not afford anyway then you have 1, maybe 2 embryos implanted. NOT EIGHT! That is stupid and selfish! Not only for her but to those children and the 3 or 4 she already had at home! Again, she was already on welfare and in debt so she DECIDED to have more and not just one more but EIGHT! She is even far more selfish than the Duggars... at least they pay for their children and they don't ask for you or I to do it for them.
    Sector NY, Staten Island
    GandlerUser is Offline
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:220
    Gandler

    --
    22 Feb 2012 10:42 AM

    Posted By Old Guard2 on 22 Feb 2012 06:46 AM
    She had 8 embryos implanted... That was intentional! If she truly wanted another child she could not afford anyway then you have 1, maybe 2 embryos implanted. NOT EIGHT! That is stupid and selfish! Not only for her but to those children and the 3 or 4 she already had at home! Again, she was already on welfare and in debt so she DECIDED to have more and not just one more but EIGHT! She is even far more selfish than the Duggars... at least they pay for their children and they don't ask for you or I to do it for them.

    I never heard that before. But if she did get embryo implants then I agree that is totally different. She was probably trying to get publicity and hoped to make money having babies. (which she certainly got publicity, no clue how much money she made though).
    I am not sure who the Duaggars are though.
    Old Guard2User is Offline
    Moderator / Trusted Member
    Forum Supreme!
    Forum Supreme!
    Send Private Message
    Posts:14305
    Old Guard2

    --
    22 Feb 2012 12:25 PM
    Oh yeah, those were all artificially inseminated and in vitro implanted. I have nothing against in vitro, it has helped countless women have children who otherwise would not have been able. But 8! Some on, that is just lunacy! The Duggars are those looney tunes on TV that have 18 or 19 kids... Joe Bob & Michelle Duggar. They are from Arkansas or somewhere there in the middle of the country. Every child's name begins with the letter "J".
    Sector NY, Staten Island
    Iceman1978User is Offline
    New Member
    New Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:48
    Iceman1978

    --
    22 Feb 2012 08:43 PM

    Posted By Old Guard2 on 22 Feb 2012 12:25 PM
    Oh yeah, those were all artificially inseminated and in vitro implanted. I have nothing against in vitro, it has helped countless women have children who otherwise would not have been able. But 8! Some on, that is just lunacy! The Duggars are those looney tunes on TV that have 18 or 19 kids... Joe Bob & Michelle Duggar. They are from Arkansas or somewhere there in the middle of the country. Every child's name begins with the letter "J".


    Man..I forgot that all their names start with J.

    I saw part of their TV show once just out of curiosity and couldn't help but laughing when they were using a PA system to let all the kids know dinner is ready. I wonder how they all sit down to dinner together without breaking the fire code?

    19 kids...I can't imagine what their grocery bill alone would be. Well, by staying barefoot and pregnant for most of her adult life at least Michelle Duggar has saved thousands of dollars on shoes.

    Can you imagine how old the hand-me-downs the youngest kids get will be? They'll be so old they'll be back in style.

    Have they formed their own LLC? The children's allowances alone would be a great tax write-off.

    You know you've got too many kids when you could form your own Occupy Wall St protest.

    And you thought a game of Monopoly took too long for your family???




    I have a few others that involve growling, Phantom of the Opera, and a trap door but I probably shouldn't say it in here. I will if you guys want to hear them though.
    GandlerUser is Offline
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:220
    Gandler

    --
    22 Feb 2012 09:15 PM

    Posted By Old Guard2 on 22 Feb 2012 12:25 PM
    Oh yeah, those were all artificially inseminated and in vitro implanted. I have nothing against in vitro, it has helped countless women have children who otherwise would not have been able. But 8! Some on, that is just lunacy! The Duggars are those looney tunes on TV that have 18 or 19 kids... Joe Bob & Michelle Duggar. They are from Arkansas or somewhere there in the middle of the country. Every child's name begins with the letter "J".

    are they real people or is it just a tv show?
    Old Guard2User is Offline
    Moderator / Trusted Member
    Forum Supreme!
    Forum Supreme!
    Send Private Message
    Posts:14305
    Old Guard2

    --
    22 Feb 2012 10:05 PM
    @Gandler - Yes. They are a totally real, live, honest to God family. That have their own TV show, reality style. Amazing isn't it? Seems like something only a Hollywood writer could come up with but nope, they are real with 19 kids!

    @Iceman, oh come on... don't stop now. Keep going! I want to hear it! LOL
    Sector NY, Staten Island
    Iceman1978User is Offline
    New Member
    New Member
    Send Private Message
    Posts:48
    Iceman1978

    --
    22 Feb 2012 10:44 PM


    @Iceman, oh come on... don't stop now. Keep going! I want to hear it! LOL


    OK.

    It's not a clown car.

    Does it growl when it's empty?

    It must stay busier than a trap door at Phantom of the Opera.

    DuPont should study its cell lining if they ever need a replacement for Teflon.

    All the Duggar children have names that begin with the letter "J". The next child will be named "Just Stop"

    You are not authorized to post a reply.
    Page 1 of 212 > >>


    Active Forums 4.3



    Military clothing, gear, insignia, baseball caps and other quality items at SoldierCity


    Disclaimer

    This web site is a privately-owned and has not been underwritten or supported by the United States Coast Guard. 
    The views and opinions posted by members do not reflect the views and opinions of the United States Coast Guard.
    This is an informational site. Welcome aboard!

    Copyright 2010 by USCG.ORG
    United States Coast Guard Forums and Information  |  Terms Of Use  |  Privacy Statement