Environmentalist seeks to limit child birth.

[David of Derby]

Splitting the atom was too. It is unrealistic to think that corruption does not exist in the legal system

Nuclear energy hasn't exactly been abused, either. Ok, so it was developed as a weapon to end World War II, but nuclear arms have never been used since and lots of countries have benefited from nuclear energy. Science isn't something to be feared, like a pack of proto-humans cowering in fear of the thunder. It should be embraced and encouraged.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended

us to forgo their use.

[jehovah Nissi]

I think you two are over-reacting a tiny little bit. No one's suggesting murdering anyone. The issues raised are perfectly valid and in no way immoral, yet you're both acting like this report suggests leaving female babies outside to die of exposure.

my response was to the article Where did you get the idea that I was thinking that people are suggesting murder??? maybe I could have been a little clearer...I have never been a fan of controled population. let people have their children...I do believe that people should be a little more responsible with when they should have their babies like internal flame suggested.

Walking in Victory,

J

[Bolts]

Nuclear energy hasn't exactly been abused, either. Ok, so it was developed as a weapon to end World War II, but nuclear arms have never been used since and lots of countries have benefited from nuclear energy. Science isn't something to be feared, like a pack of proto-humans cowering in fear of the thunder. It should be embraced and encouraged.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended

us to forgo their use.

Galileo says a mouthful there Given that we are also endowed with 'choice', it is probably in the best interest of science that we pray for Godly decisions and choices to be made so that we can embrace and encourage science.

Genetic engeering has it's positives but there are also negatives:

Science is able to manipulate genes - this gives more political power over trade and over the population. For example, they now have the ability to create seeds that will only germinate once and do not give seed, which means that consumers will have to buy seeds every year. It would possibly mean the use of less pesticides (which to me would be a good thing), putting companies out of business and thinning job prospectives. So you see, there are a lot of 'possible' shifts that can change the whole socioeconomic structure.

[Near]

Hey, I care about my environment, too, but that doesn't mean I'm going to limit my babies. Lol, I'm still young, but if we're not caught up before I can have babies, I'm going to have my little son/daughter, grow them up as a child of Christ, etc.

I also think that this is a possible way for Satan to reduce the population to nothing, and prevent more ways to destroy Earth and hurt God. Keep praying people! It's gettin' bad y'all.

[David of Derby]

Galileo says a mouthful there Given that we are also endowed with 'choice', it is probably in the best interest of science that we pray for Godly decisions and choices to be made so that we can embrace and encourage science.

Genetic engeering has it's positives but there are also negatives:

Science is able to manipulate genes - this gives more political power over trade and over the population. For example, they now have the ability to create seeds that will only germinate once and do not give seed, which means that consumers will have to buy seeds every year. It would possibly mean the use of less pesticides (which to me would be a good thing), putting companies out of business and thinning job prospectives. So you see, there are a lot of 'possible' shifts that can change the whole socioeconomic structure.

Any technology is open to abuse; genetic sciences could create biological weapons the likes of which we've only imagined in our nightmares, but we have to hope our governments don't allow that sort of thing. It's not like we don't have enough WMDs anyway. On the other side of the coin, genetic engineering can produce animals and plants that will flourish in different environments, making it possible to farm the deserts of the world.

God gave us the ability to do these things. We have to trust that He will guide us to the proper use of our abilities.

[JustinM]

I think you two are over-reacting a tiny little bit. No one's suggesting murdering anyone. The issues raised are perfectly valid and in no way immoral, yet you're both acting like this report suggests leaving female babies outside to die of exposure.

Life is a blessing, not a curse David. Anyone that has the worldview that humans are a menace to the planet, is an elitist nazi. Now, most people believe that murder is wrong, so for a society to accept the murder and extermination of a specific class of people, the society must first buy into the ideology that separate them from others. In this case, the elitist is an environmentalist, that in some manner, believe he's a better "human" than anyone that has more than 2 children. The risk right now, is the ideology that exists. Because before Hitler or Roe V Wade, the thought of exterminating fellow human beings was apalling to even the most avid liberal.

Here's another link to another crazy environmentalist and how he feels about the "infidels."

David Lindorff's Christmas Eve message to us "troglodytes":

(Warning, may have sudden urge to: or .)

http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2007/122407Lindorff.html

Constitution be damned, he already sees us as second class citizens, dhimmis, that shouldn't be allowed to influence politics when/if his fantasy comes true.

trog

[Kansasdad]

It come down to a mind set. In essence they have made children the enemy. Do we want to live in a culture that embraces all children as precious or as a problem.

God Bless,

K.D.

[forrestkc]

I think it's a legitimate concern - if our population keeps increasing like that sooner or later this world will not have enough resources to support us.

However, I doubt the problem should be solved by telling loving married couples to cut down. People should stop having sex and kids out of wedlock. If we were just a little more responsible things would be much better.

I don't know anything about this "green think tank". I would imagine its a rather marginal one. However, the reactionary responses in this thread aside, you have a good point. We have more than tripled the world's population in the last 100 years and that can't continue indefinitely. This is not just for environmental reasons either, but also because of issues of poverty and famine as well. The problem is not really in the developed world though. Its rather more a problem of explosive population growth in the third world and in sub-saharan Africa. One would be hard to find a single environmental organization, aid organization, or NGO period that would not agree that birth rates have to be curbed in the developing world. I don't think anyone is arguing that we need to have some kind of totalitarian restrictions on child bearing in the developing world, but rather that significant steps have got to be taken there to promote family planning (such as contraceptive use among married couples so that they only have kids they actually plan for and can support), and curbing children born out of wedlock.

[JustinM]

I think it's a legitimate concern - if our population keeps increasing like that sooner or later this world will not have enough resources to support us.

However, I doubt the problem should be solved by telling loving married couples to cut down. People should stop having sex and kids out of wedlock. If we were just a little more responsible things would be much better.

I don't know anything about this "green think tank". I would imagine its a rather marginal one. However, the reactionary responses in this thread aside, you have a good point. We have more than tripled the world's population in the last 100 years and that can't continue indefinitely. This is not just for environmental reasons either, but also because of issues of poverty and famine as well. The problem is not really in the developed world though. Its rather more a problem of explosive population growth in the third world and in sub-saharan Africa. One would be hard to find a single environmental organization, aid organization, or NGO period that would not agree that birth rates have to be curbed in the developing world. I don't think anyone is arguing that we need to have some kind of totalitarian restrictions on child bearing in the developing world, but rather that significant steps have got to be taken there to promote family planning (such as contraceptive use among married couples so that they only have kids they actually plan for and can support), and curbing children born out of wedlock.

The purpose of this topic was to point out the totalitarian ideology floating around in some environmentalist circles. Some of the population control ideologies need to be identified and stifled. Totalitarianism, fascism, nazism, elitism comes in many different forms under many different categories, all of it bad. Men like David Lindorff are very dangerous in their ideology and what's worse is that organizations, like the Baltimore Chronicle, are giving these nazis a platform and megaphone to spread this elitist ideology.

[JustinM]

What do you consider the developing world? Third-world countries? Because, I believe some countries aren't even developing. Famine, war, and plague, infect the undeveloped world. Any option other than a Western invasion will not solve the problem.

So, what's the moral and humane thing to do? Drop bags of wheat from helicopters and watch the people fight over scraps, or destroy their primitive army and government and establish a modern civilization? The warlords have to go, the corrupt governments has to go, the murderous militias need to be eliminated.

I believe that only a heavy handed response will solve these problems.

Or we could continue to just watch them, from our satellites, tear each other apart for scraps and we can say that we are doing good in the world by airdropping food onto those pitiful people. It's the easiest thing to do right?