Talk:Population control

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Problems with bias in this page

Abortion is nowhere near the most important factor in controlling exponential population expansion. Resisting the natural impulse to have an excessive number of biological children in a family is. --User:Mert

I agree with your comment to an extent, Mert, but many proponents of Abortion use population control as justification for their views. I'm not saying that overpopulation isn't an issue; any case of a species' population growing exponentially (by means of a j-curve) is great cause for environmental concern for the future. But Abortion, like other similar topics, is often supported out of context. --Reinfleche


Not sure who Paul Ehrlich is or was, and there's no citation given for the statistic that humans occupy only 1 or 2% of the earth's surface, but assuming the figures aren't from as biased a source as the CIA, do we know how much of the earth's land surface CAN be occupied by humans? If the area that CAN'T be occupied by humans, because it's too hot/too cold/too dry etc., is say, for sake of arguement, 80% then the 1 or 2% figure takes on a whole new meaning. BetsyNewson 10:37, 8 January 2009 (EST)

I think the 1-2% statistic needs to be clarified? is it 1-2% if all humans were crowded together standing up? or is it 1-2% taking into account a minimum of space needed for one to live (for the sake of argument, lets assume a 4x7 room), or is it 1-2% after taking into consideration all of the space needed to produce food, energy and fresh water for each person?

Liberal Socialist Myth

Ignoring some of the other potential issues with this article, regarding the introduction ("Population control is the liberal socialist myth.."), is it really a "socialist" myth? I mean, I don't see anything in the article that suggests it's socialist in nature. Liberal, I'm okay with, but the two terms aren't interchangeable (even if they were, it would be redundant). KevinS 11:37, 8 January 2009 (EST)

First paragraph revision

I changed the opening of the article to clarify that "population control" is not the myth - it's the concern about overpopulation that is. Population control is the reaction to the myth, not the myth itself. For the record, I don't consider the whole "liberal socialist myth" part to be true, but my fix is meant to be grammatical/contextual, not ideological. --DinsdaleP 10:44, 9 January 2009 (EST)


Population control and eugenics are two different things: eugenics aims to interfere with with qualitative aspects of natural human reproduction, population control aims to interfere with its quantitative aspects. Occasionaly the two overlap (as with the examples of mass sterilization of the poor) but I do think the distinction needs to be mentioned. JosephJackson 22:09, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

I suggest you book a flight to Liberalville, Joseph, or at least get out of the sun. How is it different, realistically? Abortion is baby killing, Eugenics might mean targeting only the retarded, or those with Downs Syndrome, or perhaps only Black babies or Hispanic ones, like Planned Parenthood does, which, as everyone knows, was founded by eugenicists and carries on in their despicable tradition today. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 22:17, 3 August 2009 (EDT)
Being in favor of aborting baby's of a specific ethnic (or whatever group) is indeed eugenic, but being in favor of abortion in general is not. I'm not saying non-eugenic abortion is acceptable - but most liberals just want to dispose themselves selfishly of their baby's, they obviously don't care about them and don't care whatever race it would have - but it's not the same thing. JosephJackson 22:23, 3 August 2009 (EDT)
Look, its been a good day for me....and I don't want to spoil it now, arguing about this. If it makes you feel better, lessens some of your guilt, go for it....continue to think there is a difference. Murder is murder. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 22:32, 3 August 2009 (EDT)