You came in the OP proposing the biggest crime against humanity in all of history. When we called you to either defend or retract your claim, you instead tried to weasel away from your statement by saying that you were merely suggesting it as a possible response to a possible situation. Yet this is a ridiculous excuse, for reasons that ought to be obvious.
Huh? What I proposed in the opening post was:
Should we be asking our governments to study this problem [overpopulation] in detail, and if we really need to reduce to 1 child or less per family for the next 50 years, to begin a program to enforce that?
I still stand behind that 100%, and have never made the slightest attempt to weasel out of it. Once again, where in the heck are you getting this stuff?
Yes, we should be studying the problem. If we are indeed at 20% overshoot as the first link suggests, or at 60% overshoot as the WWF concludes, or even worse as David Pimentel concludes, then we absolutely should be studying this problem to see if future generations will indeed face a worn-out planet that can no longer support the billions alive. I firmly support this research. Nothing that I have said here is in any way an attempt to weasel out of my desire for such research.
Also,
if such research concludes strongly that we should reduce family size to 1 child per family for a while to avoid disaster, then I strongly suggest that the people of this world should work together to find a way to limit the number of births in order to avoid the mass starvation that would otherwise ensue.
If someone were to "suggest" that we have all Jews roundedb up and sent to gas chambers in order to prevent a possible problem, it would be a morally atrocious thing to say, even if they pretended it was just a suggestion. If some were to "suggest" that black people should be enslaved and forced to pick cotton in order to prevent a possible problem, it would be a morally atrocious thing to say, even if they pretended it was just a suggestion. To suggest a repeat of major crimes against humanity on an even larger scale is morally unacceptable not matter how it is phrased or what justifications are offered.
Sir, anybody who suggests that that we send Jews to gas chambers or enslave other races would be suggesting atrocious crimes.
Nothing that I said here remotely suggests that we should do any such crimes. I am absolutely against such atrocities.
I was asking that we study the sustainable capacity of the earth. It is not a crime against humanity to study the sustainable capacity of the earth, for crying out loud. How can anybody possibly equate studying the sustainable capacity of the earth with recommending the Holcaust?!?!
And I was asking that, if further study makes it obvious that the future population of the world must be less than the current population in order to prevent mass starvation, then we should find a way to humanely control population so that we do not have mass starvation. The most humane way to control population is to come to an agreement on how to limit the number of births.
That book by George Orwell which you're reading is a social satire, not a how-to guide.
You're the one arguing--excuse me, suggesting--that people be denied the right to choose how many children to have, while everyone else in this thread is arguing the opposite position.
Speaking of rewriting history, why are you rewriting the history of this thread? Some people agree that we should control population, some disagree. So why in the heck do you write that everybody is going in the opposite direction as me on this thread? Are you hoping that nobody will actually read this thread, and see how you have rewritten history?
Uh, and what was that you were saying about George Orwell?
That makes us pro-liberty and you anti-liberty by definition. Liberty exists when persons have the right to make their own decisions, tyranny when the government takes over decisions that should be personal.
Oh, please. Is a person who wants to legalize rape pro-liberty? Is the person that wants to be allowed to defecate at will on his neighbor's lawn, pro-liberty?
We are all pro-liberty. We all argue for the right to swing our arm if we want, but we also recognize that our right to swing our arms ends where another person's nose begins.
The person who want to make it illegal to use his neighbors yard as a bathroom is not "anti-liberty by definition". The world needs some laws to maintain society, for crying out loud.
Likewise you're arguing--excuse me, suggesting--that billions of future human beings should not be allowed to live at all. That makes you anti-life by definition.
Huh? If two teenagers go out on a first date, would you then argue that they should be making a baby on that date? If they do not have sex and conceive a baby, is the "future person" that they would have conceived then a victim of their "crime" of not having sex? Are teenagers that do not have sex committing a terrible crime against the future people that otherwise would have lived if they had been promiscuous?
Oh please! Deciding to not have a baby is not a crime against humanity, for crying out loud.
Does being against teenage pregnancy make one anti-life by definition???????
So how can one possibly call the family who decides they have had enough children "anti-life by definition"?