<p>The problem is not with people controlling their own reproduction, but with malefactors trying to control other peoples’ reproduction.</p>
<p>lol if you are making it a human rights issue… well, let’s just say that human rights won’t be very relevant once we start killing each other over resources that are too scarce. Sounds like you just want to have your cake and eat it too.</p>
<p>Human rights aren’t very relevant once we start killing each other and punishing conceptions in an attempt to decrease the scarcity of resources.</p>
<p>I agree that people should have the right to have as many kids as they want. However, I think it is critically important that people actually really want children before reproducing.</p>
<p>Yes, as long as it’s their responsibility instead of the responsibility of someone with power over them.</p>
<p>Well, I’m not saying we should start forcing random pregant women to get abortions; but to suggest that there is no such thing as excessive reproduction in certain human populations or that trying to curb reproduction in any way is wrong is not a defensible perspective in my opinion. We should at least make sure people are more informed about sex, etc. and also use tax benefits and the like to make people think more carefully about having kids as much as they like.</p>
<p>
Everything was good until this.</p>
<p>Explain what is wrong with that.</p>
<p>It’s an arbitrary use of money (which ultimately belongs to the people governed) that is not derived from the consent of the governed.</p>
<p>Aside from initiating annual mass population exterminations, I think we should save the whales</p>
<p>Oh, I thought you were against it on some other grounds. Well, I am not saying that it should be done without democratic process.</p>
<p>[Voluntary</a> Human Extinction Movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement]Voluntary”>Voluntary Human Extinction Movement - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Heck yes.</p>
<p>I think America should decrease it’s energy consumption and at least try to be level with the rest of the world. Part of that is to try to persuade Americans to drive fuel efficient cars, stop eating so much fat, etc.</p>
<p>I think solar power has a lot of potential in becoming our next source of alternative energy. If we can significantly improve the efficiency of our solar panels and find cost effective ways to produce them, that will be awesome. There’s more energy coming from sunlight than any other resources available to us COMBINED. If we harness just a fraction of that then we’re all set - wishful thinking.</p>
<p>I think biofuels is a lost cause. It does nothing to reduce the release of CO2, and I don’t think it will catch on and replace gasoline. We might as well stop producing cars altogether and advocate for monorails.</p>
<p>There are other factors, but the biggest I think is investment in technological research. We need to improve the efficiency in generating energy, and that is only possible with technology. The second biggest would be to teach our kids not to be like those fat chauvinistic pigs who drive hummers. </p>
<p>The government has the most power in regulating these things, but I’ll leave that discussion to pol sci majors.</p>
<p>
Reaching population-controlling policies through a democratic process is the tyranny of the majority, which is no better than any other form of tyranny. I like what Ben Franklin said about it – “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.” That’s actually the problem with most environmental policies aimed at protecting the environment – they go beyond the power that the government should have over the people. I believe in taking personal environmental responsibility (not driving a “****ing Hummer” is a start), but not in taking responsibility over other peoples’ environmental decisions.</p>
<p>Okay, a republican process then?</p>
<p>A voluntary, personal, cooperative process that involves no coercion or enforced theft known as “takes”. It’s not your place, my place, or a bureaucrat’s place to force anyone into environmental responsibility. It is the place of ecologists to inform and encourage the public to take care of the environment, and it is the place of environmental engineers to develop sustainable technology for people to voluntarily use.</p>
<p>What if the majority of people refuse to take personal responsibility for the environment?</p>
<p>It’s their choice and their demise.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What if there are benefits for those who do things that are environmentally friendly? Policies and regulations seem restrictive, and are bound to p1ss people off. On the other hand, if the government provide regular benefits to people who recycle, it will surely turn some heads.</p>
<p>According to Halogen, that is not acceptable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it will probably be the demise of the future collective children of the human race.</p>