Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

That may be a good idea actualy. If more countries in the world introduced policies like china has then the population will be limited and not expand and might decrease. There's supposed to be a boom and in the next 20 years or so the population is supposed to increase to 8 Billion. I think some sort of population control actualy is a good idea.

gemmygemmerson wrote:I think some sort of population control actualy is a good idea.

To my mind, it is not just a good idea but ESSENTIAL. Sadly the Chinese have not got it right yet, the new generation of Little Emperors will probably be horrendous as adults.

We have to ensure that female foeticide doesn't take place - I know that it does make it more difficult for men to find partners if there are fewer women around but it will also lead to social chaos.

Quite. But somehow I don't see many of the major countries e.g USA which contribute most to climate agreeing to a population control sadly. It stems from the Kyoto Protocol where USA stated that they would not sacrifice economical benefit in order to combat climate change. If they won't sacrifice economic gain then I don't think they'd agree to a population control. It's currently probably the best option but the least practical

The Chinese sort of got it right, but actually economically they're now finding it hard - just like the rest of the world, they have an aging population.

If you reduce the number of babies (and hence young people) but continue to lengthen life artificially, then all you end up with is an aging population which costs a fortune, and nobody to service them....

In other words, we need to reduce life expectancy - harsh, but true I think?

Katharine wrote:

gemmygemmerson wrote:I think some sort of population control actualy is a good idea.

To my mind, it is not just a good idea but ESSENTIAL. Sadly the Chinese have not got it right yet, the new generation of Little Emperors will probably be horrendous as adults.

We have to ensure that female foeticide doesn't take place - I know that it does make it more difficult for men to find partners if there are fewer women around but it will also lead to social chaos.

Why is it essential?

Because Humans are BAD

jtaylor wrote:If you reduce the number of babies (and hence young people) but continue to lengthen life artificially, then all you end up with is an aging population which costs a fortune, and nobody to service them....

In other words, we need to reduce life expectancy - harsh, but true I think?

From a personal point of view, this makes me dither a bit. How many really old people have I nursed and helped recover from, say, cardiac or vascular life-threatening illnesses, to the joy of their loving families?

Here's a comment from my godmother, age 94.

"I'm fed up. We all live too long nowadays".

Munch

gemmygemmerson wrote:Because Humans are BAD

That is what the "green lobby" and others would have you think for their own utilitarian agendas.

....."The fact is that of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that rise into the atmosphere every year, only 6 billion are directly attributable to man. The rest are from natural causes, biological activity in the oceans, volcanic activity and decaying vegetation. Which is why global warming advocates like Jerry Mahlman of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) freely admit that even "If Kyoto were successful, it would produce a small decrease in the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. It would take 40 Kyotos to actually stop the increase." ["The Emperor’s New Climate: Is Global Warming Real?", Crisis.

How convenient, as has been considered higher up this thread, to dispose of people past their economic sell-by-date and justify it as "population control to protect against climate change."

Then what? Disabled people, mentally handicapped people, dissidents from the prevailing orthodoxy?

Religion may have caused problems in the past but the Commandments in particular have given us the basis of civilisation and respect for the sanctity of human life.

The potential ramifications arising from the essentially utilitarian philosophy of Darwinism and the Green Lobby frankly terrify me.



......"Given how science has survived complicity in so many scams with its own reputation and the credibility of evolution still in check, this is doubtful. Nonetheless, as with evolution, ever increasing numbers of scientists are breaking ranks with their compromised peers (whose careers and grant money are tied to supporting politically correct theories) to challenge the "misuse of facts" and the notion that the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate because of man-made CO2.

According to Phillips: "Now even James Hansen, the Nasa scientist whose predictions of a huge rise in global warming helped light the bonfire 14 years ago, has stood on his head. He now agrees with the sceptics that the world will most likely heat up during this century by no more than 0.7C, virtually identical to the rise in the past 100 years."

She also points to a report published on 25 February 2002 by the European Science And Environment Forum [ESEF], "in which a group of eminent scientists from Britain and America shred the theory and, with it, the credibility of the Inter-Governmental Panel On Climate Change [IPCC] that predicted a rise in temperature of between 1.4C and 5.8C by 2100. This led to the Kyoto Protocol, which required swingeing cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by the industrialised nations." She goes on:

[The IPCC] got it wrong, these scientists say, because it used wholly inadequate computer models. These omitted numerous factors contributing to climate change, such as clouds, water vapour, atmospheric and ocean currents and the effects of the sun. In addition, they failed to deal with the complex reactions involved in climate change. One study alone by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the National Aeronautics And Space Administration revealed the effects on heat levels of high-level clouds, which knocked the climate models for six.

Computer modelling is, in general, a dubious scientific tool. When it comes to climate change, it uses partial data to transform flawed hypotheses into prophecy. It is of little more use than a ouija board.

["The great global warming con-trick", Daily Mail, 25/2/02]

Mid A 15 wrote:

gemmygemmerson wrote:Because Humans are BAD

That is what the "green lobby" and others would have you think for their own utilitarian agendas.

....."The fact is that of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that rise into the atmosphere every year, only 6 billion are directly attributable to man. The rest are from natural causes, biological activity in the oceans, volcanic activity and decaying vegetation. Which is why global warming advocates like Jerry Mahlman of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) freely admit that even "If Kyoto were successful, it would produce a small decrease in the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. It would take 40 Kyotos to actually stop the increase." ["The Emperor’s New Climate: Is Global Warming Real?", Crisis.


Then what? Disabled people, mentally handicapped people, dissidents from the prevailing orthodoxy?

Religion may have caused problems in the past but the Commandments in particular have given us the basis of civilisation and respect for the sanctity of human life.

The potential ramifications arising from the essentially utilitarian philosophy of Darwinism and the Green Lobby frankly terrify me.



......"Given how science has survived complicity in so many scams with its own reputation and the credibility of evolution still in check, this is doubtful. Nonetheless, as with evolution, ever increasing numbers of scientists are breaking ranks with their compromised peers (whose careers and grant money are tied to supporting politically correct theories) to challenge the "misuse of facts" and the notion that the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate because of man-made CO2.

According to Phillips: "Now even James Hansen, the Nasa scientist whose predictions of a huge rise in global warming helped light the bonfire 14 years ago, has stood on his head. He now agrees with the sceptics that the world will most likely heat up during this century by no more than 0.7C, virtually identical to the rise in the past 100 years."

She also points to a report published on 25 February 2002 by the European Science And Environment Forum [ESEF], "in which a group of eminent scientists from Britain and America shred the theory and, with it, the credibility of the Inter-Governmental Panel On Climate Change [IPCC] that predicted a rise in temperature of between 1.4C and 5.8C by 2100. This led to the Kyoto Protocol, which required swingeing cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by the industrialised nations." She goes on:

[The IPCC] got it wrong, these scientists say, because it used wholly inadequate computer models. These omitted numerous factors contributing to climate change, such as clouds, water vapour, atmospheric and ocean currents and the effects of the sun. In addition, they failed to deal with the complex reactions involved in climate change. One study alone by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the National Aeronautics And Space Administration revealed the effects on heat levels of high-level clouds, which knocked the climate models for six.

Computer modelling is, in general, a dubious scientific tool. When it comes to climate change, it uses partial data to transform flawed hypotheses into prophecy. It is of little more use than a ouija board.

["The great global warming con-trick", Daily Mail, 25/2/02]

This posting made me quite cross, and what irritates me even more is that I'm not entirely sure why. I know virtually nothing whatsoever of any of the sciences and have never had any great inclination to find out. I've stayed out of the global warming debate in all its forms and forums, from pubs to dinner tables to internet, because I don't know enough to make an intelligent contribution (and I realise that that comment leaves me wide open, but I have no intention of offering any opinion on the extent of global warming or the contribution of mankind to its apparent increase.)

Irritations:

1. Using a short quote from a comparatively young person (no offence, Gemma) to make the initial point. Not necessary.

2. The quotation marks around "green lobby". There is a green lobby; the quotation marks immediately imply (to me) a previously held bias against them, and that raised my antennae. (I say "them" because I'm not one of their number.)

3. The introduction of Christianity into the argument.

4. The idea that the green lobby has an agenda (of course they do, it's their whole raison d'etre), while the Daily Mail has none (of course they do, and call me cynical, but I'd suggest it wasn't unconnected to money.)

5. The fact that for every opinion quoted above, I could go on line and find half a dozen eminently respectable scientists saying the exact opposite. (And no, I have no intention of doing so.)

6. "How convenient, as has been considered higher up this thread, to dispose of people past their economic sell-by-date and justify it as "population control to protect against climate change.""

Be careful how you use this kind of argument. It's obviously very emotive, and equally obviously hugely relevant to many people in many different ways. I don't agree with Julian's posting, but I "dither" along with Angela about euthanasia. My mother, when she still had occasional periods of lucidity, once told me, quite calmly, that it was long past time for her to die. She died five years later aged 86, which was at least four years too many. And not for reasons of economy.

It's also clear (at least, that's how I read it) that you have very strong feelings against any form of euthanasia, and I respect that.

I wasn't sure whether you were arguing that global warming is a myth, or that it's largely a natural phenomenon, but that's probably the fault of my scientific ignorance rather than your argument. I think it was your certainty that irritated me as much as anything, but I've always had that problem. Too many grey areas.

I didn't join this forum to get embroiled in any controversy, and when I saw this thread start I didn't intend to offer a contribution, but you stirred something I couldn't satisfy unless I responded.

Ajarn Philip wrote:

Mid A 15 wrote:

gemmygemmerson wrote:Because Humans are BAD

That is what the "green lobby" and others would have you think for their own utilitarian agendas.

....."The fact is that of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that rise into the atmosphere every year, only 6 billion are directly attributable to man. The rest are from natural causes, biological activity in the oceans, volcanic activity and decaying vegetation. Which is why global warming advocates like Jerry Mahlman of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) freely admit that even "If Kyoto were successful, it would produce a small decrease in the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. It would take 40 Kyotos to actually stop the increase." ["The Emperor’s New Climate: Is Global Warming Real?", Crisis.


Then what? Disabled people, mentally handicapped people, dissidents from the prevailing orthodoxy?

Religion may have caused problems in the past but the Commandments in particular have given us the basis of civilisation and respect for the sanctity of human life.

The potential ramifications arising from the essentially utilitarian philosophy of Darwinism and the Green Lobby frankly terrify me.



......"Given how science has survived complicity in so many scams with its own reputation and the credibility of evolution still in check, this is doubtful. Nonetheless, as with evolution, ever increasing numbers of scientists are breaking ranks with their compromised peers (whose careers and grant money are tied to supporting politically correct theories) to challenge the "misuse of facts" and the notion that the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate because of man-made CO2.

According to Phillips: "Now even James Hansen, the Nasa scientist whose predictions of a huge rise in global warming helped light the bonfire 14 years ago, has stood on his head. He now agrees with the sceptics that the world will most likely heat up during this century by no more than 0.7C, virtually identical to the rise in the past 100 years."

She also points to a report published on 25 February 2002 by the European Science And Environment Forum [ESEF], "in which a group of eminent scientists from Britain and America shred the theory and, with it, the credibility of the Inter-Governmental Panel On Climate Change [IPCC] that predicted a rise in temperature of between 1.4C and 5.8C by 2100. This led to the Kyoto Protocol, which required swingeing cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by the industrialised nations." She goes on:

[The IPCC] got it wrong, these scientists say, because it used wholly inadequate computer models. These omitted numerous factors contributing to climate change, such as clouds, water vapour, atmospheric and ocean currents and the effects of the sun. In addition, they failed to deal with the complex reactions involved in climate change. One study alone by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the National Aeronautics And Space Administration revealed the effects on heat levels of high-level clouds, which knocked the climate models for six.

Computer modelling is, in general, a dubious scientific tool. When it comes to climate change, it uses partial data to transform flawed hypotheses into prophecy. It is of little more use than a ouija board.

["The great global warming con-trick", Daily Mail, 25/2/02]

This posting made me quite cross, and what irritates me even more is that I'm not entirely sure why. I know virtually nothing whatsoever of any of the sciences and have never had any great inclination to find out. I've stayed out of the global warming debate in all its forms and forums, from pubs to dinner tables to internet, because I don't know enough to make an intelligent contribution (and I realise that that comment leaves me wide open, but I have no intention of offering any opinion on the extent of global warming or the contribution of mankind to its apparent increase.)

Irritations:

1. Using a short quote from a comparatively young person (no offence, Gemma) to make the initial point. Not necessary.

I quoted Gemma because she directly responded to a question I asked higher up the thread. My woeful IT skills do not allow me to do those split quotes others seem capable of to set it in full context

2. The quotation marks around "green lobby". There is a green lobby; the quotation marks immediately imply (to me) a previously held bias against them, and that raised my antennae. (I say "them" because I'm not one of their number.)

"Green Lobby" comes from the link I supplied higher up the thread. As to previously held bias I certainly am instinctively suspicious of those who wish to overly control the lifestyle of others. My personal philosophy is freedom of the individual as far as practically possible.

3. The introduction of Christianity into the argument.

I actually introduced Religion, not specifically Christianity although that happens to be my personal religion, into the argument since "Population Control" COULD imply culling of one form or other. I think that since many of our Laws stem from the morals contained within the Commandments, specifically thou shalt not kill, religion IS relevant to this discussion.

4. The idea that the green lobby has an agenda (of course they do, it's their whole raison d'etre), while the Daily Mail has none (of course they do, and call me cynical, but I'd suggest it wasn't unconnected to money.)

I could suggest you have a "previously held bias" against the Daily Mail

the point is that eminent scientists and scientific bodies (sourced in the article) are backtracking on their previous position


5. The fact that for every opinion quoted above, I could go on line and find half a dozen eminently respectable scientists saying the exact opposite. (And no, I have no intention of doing so.)

The opposite or something close to it has been posted elsewhere within the thread. All I did was post a valid viewpoint that is frequently suppressed in much of the mainstream media.

It is your perogative to disagree with me just as it is mine to disagree with you. The important thing is that we BOTH have the right to express our points of view.


6. "How convenient, as has been considered higher up this thread, to dispose of people past their economic sell-by-date and justify it as "population control to protect against climate change.""

Be careful how you use this kind of argument. It's obviously very emotive, and equally obviously hugely relevant to many people in many different ways. I don't agree with Julian's posting, but I "dither" along with Angela about euthanasia. My mother, when she still had occasional periods of lucidity, once told me, quite calmly, that it was long past time for her to die. She died five years later aged 86, which was at least four years too many. And not for reasons of economy.

It's also clear (at least, that's how I read it) that you have very strong feelings against any form of euthanasia, and I respect that.

Yes I am on balance against euthanasia partly for religious reasons but also because I fear the utilitarians or population controllers abusing it if it was legalised. The "slippery slope" if you like.

That doesn't mean I don't also dither. Three weeks ago we had an emotional funeral service for my Uncle who recently died from Alzheimers. I would be lying if I said that I didn't wonder whether euthanasia might be appropiate for him at times. One of his sons (my cousin) said that euthanasia might make things easier for those around the stricken person but it is not necessarially best for him (or her).

I found that observation significant since my cousin does not purport to be religious in anyway whatsoever.

I wasn't sure whether you were arguing that global warming is a myth, or that it's largely a natural phenomenon, but that's probably the fault of my scientific ignorance rather than your argument. I think it was your certainty that irritated me as much as anything, but I've always had that problem. Too many grey areas.

I'm essentially arguing that global warming is largely a natural phenomenon and not man made.

My "certainty" is an illusion since my scientific knowledge is largely confined to grade 6 physics with chemistry "O" level in 1969.

I think if you read elsewhere in the thread there are similar statements of "certainty" on the other side. Population control is ESSENTIAL for instance.


One of the few downsides of forums is that the written word does not always come across in the same way as the spoken word. I've been told that I have a forthright style of writing but verbally I'm very different.

I didn't join this forum to get embroiled in any controversy, and when I saw this thread start I didn't intend to offer a contribution, but you stirred something I couldn't satisfy unless I responded.

As I said above we are ALL entitled to an opinion. I'm pleased that you have offered a contribution.

Fair enough

Mid A 15 wrote:Here is an article for those that are interested. If you don't want to read the whole thing (it is long) start from "The Green Piltdown."

http://www.christianorder.com/features/ ... oct06.html

My own fault for expressing my opinion (at length, as usual, sorry) before exploring all the available evidence. I've just read this link from start to finish. Consider my previous postings withdrawn.

As I was the person who posted that I felt population control was ESSENTIAL I should justify my position, and I apologise for not doing so last night. August is the most manic month at work and getting coherent thought out of me at the end of the day is not always easy, so I should have stayed quiet.

I do NOT think that population control along the lines of the Chinese one child policy is the answer. What I do think necessary is for everyone to learn the basics of birth control and to have the ability to access the means to apply it to their lives. It has been shown (and no I don't have anyone to quote) that when girls have access to education it leads to a decrease in the number of babies they have as adults. Another thing that leads to decrease in births per mother is the survival of the children born to them.

Various triumphs of medical science have, in part, led to the population explosion of the last century. The sheer number of people living on the planet, and their desires for material possessions, have led to much of the degradation of the planet such as destruction of the rain forests, building on flood plains and land reclamation leading to changing water flows.

I share Mid A 15's dislike for euthanasia but I do feel that at times the medical system does strive officiously to keep alive when the quality of life is going to be appalling. I appreciate this is a very difficult question for an outsider but I well remember my dying mother-in-law crying out that an animal would not be allowed to suffer as she was doing - it would be put down why couldn't she?

I hope that explains my position a bit better than my short post last night, and hope it is coherent - it's all you will get out of me tonight on this subject.

Katharine wrote:I do NOT think that population control along the lines of the Chinese one child policy is the answer. What I do think necessary is for everyone to learn the basics of birth control and to have the ability to access the means to apply it to their lives. It has been shown (and no I don't have anyone to quote) that when girls have access to education it leads to a decrease in the number of babies they have as adults. Another thing that leads to decrease in births per mother is the survival of the children born to them.

Although that is excellent in theory the practicalities don't work in the same way.
The RC Church has many adherents in many countries and blocks any concept of birth control. When girls from the age of 10 are told "go forth and multiply" and don't have a very high standard of other education they tend to do what the village leader - the priest - tells them to do. I saw this in Western Europe in 1961 not 50 miles from where I am now so the situation in places like South America, the Phiollipines etc. is probably worse.

There are other cultures wheredeath in infancy is high and it is considered normal, de rigeur etc. to have as big a family as possible to ensure that at least one son survives to take over the family's future. You don't destroy such cultures easily.

You say that population declines / stabilises with improvements in education. Possibly - a number of towns in the UK (Aberdeen springs to mind) have experienced actual population declines where deaths exceed live births but that in itself raises problems. 1) Governments decide on what their populations shall learn (Communist Russia was an example) and what India teaches it's poor might not accord with what we think they should learn. In some countries - Malawi for example - it could easily be a modernised Sudetenland type nationalistic policy requiring huge numbers of soldiers ready to fight for the nation. 2) How do you go about training all the teachers needed let alone financing the schools themselves? 3) Local cultures sometimes take pupils out of class to help on the family farm herding animals, bringing in the harvest etc. When that is necessary for the survival of the family then education will not get a look in.
4) With education come increased aspirations for well paying jobs in the cities denuding the countyside and reducuing the already low standard of living and bringing with it crime, violence, drug culture, instability etc. when people find that such jobs simply don't exist......
We only have to look in England's megatropolises where an under / un educated undergrtound culture of violence exists and where politicians and the police have decided not to even bother with dealing with much violence and theft because they can't be bothered. (OK so they say it is lack of resources)

Education is a two edged sword.

Katharine; sorry but I think that de facto the "one child" max is the only practical solution. Another part of the solution is a complete dropping in the rights to compensation of those who are injured / killed in accidents. Make people look out for themselves and if they don't and get killed then that is a benefit to the community.

sejintenej wrote:

Katharine wrote:I do NOT think that population control along the lines of the Chinese one child policy is the answer. What I do think necessary is for everyone to learn the basics of birth control and to have the ability to access the means to apply it to their lives. It has been shown (and no I don't have anyone to quote) that when girls have access to education it leads to a decrease in the number of babies they have as adults. Another thing that leads to decrease in births per mother is the survival of the children born to them.

Although that is excellent in theory the practicalities don't work in the same way.
The RC Church has many adherents in many countries and blocks any concept of birth control. When girls from the age of 10 are told "go forth and multiply" and don't have a very high standard of other education they tend to do what the village leader - the priest - tells them to do. I saw this in Western Europe in 1961 not 50 miles from where I am now so the situation in places like South America, the Phiollipines etc. is probably worse.

There are other cultures wheredeath in infancy is high and it is considered normal, de rigeur etc. to have as big a family as possible to ensure that at least one son survives to take over the family's future. You don't destroy such cultures easily.

You say that population declines / stabilises with improvements in education. Possibly - a number of towns in the UK (Aberdeen springs to mind) have experienced actual population declines where deaths exceed live births but that in itself raises problems. 1) Governments decide on what their populations shall learn (Communist Russia was an example) and what India teaches it's poor might not accord with what we think they should learn. In some countries - Malawi for example - it could easily be a modernised Sudetenland type nationalistic policy requiring huge numbers of soldiers ready to fight for the nation. 2) How do you go about training all the teachers needed let alone financing the schools themselves? 3) Local cultures sometimes take pupils out of class to help on the family farm herding animals, bringing in the harvest etc. When that is necessary for the survival of the family then education will not get a look in.
4) With education come increased aspirations for well paying jobs in the cities denuding the countyside and reducuing the already low standard of living and bringing with it crime, violence, drug culture, instability etc. when people find that such jobs simply don't exist......


We only have to look in England's megatropolises where an under / un educated undergrtound culture of violence exists and where politicians and the police have decided not to even bother with dealing with much violence and theft because they can't be bothered. (OK so they say it is lack of resources)

Education is a two edged sword.

Katharine; sorry but I think that de facto the "one child" max is the only practical solution. Another part of the solution is a complete dropping in the rights to compensation of those who are injured / killed in accidents. Make people look out for themselves and if they don't and get killed then that is a benefit to the community.

No, I think that was a lad called Wilkinson, David !!