Meet the women who won't have babies - because they're not eco friendly

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I think it's better that folks like her don't procreate. Imagine the madness down the road...

[natty bumppo 297]

If everyone were meant to have babies, we would not have abused, neglected and or orphan kids. Some people really are doing humanity a favor by not breeding. Just because one can, does not mean one should.

I agree, although I think this woman's reason was lame. Overconsumption is destroying this planet...not population growth, IMO.

At the moment these are tied together ... more people means more consumption ....

Not necessarily. A family of 6 in Somalia is most probably using up less non-renewable resources and adding less pollution than a couple with no children living here in the U.S.

the point is consumption ... more people = more consumption ... doesn't matter where the people are located.

(let's just ... for discussion say ... the family of 6 just adds one more person ... and consumption doesn't increase ?)

Natty, if I own 2 small economy cars and go through a total of 20 gallons a week combined, and you own 1 large SUV that goes through 40 gallons a week, who is consuming more gas?

don't forget the construction, transportation of parts, maintenance, and disposal of the two cars vs one vehicle

there is much more to the equation than simply "gas"

[MelindaandTarek 0]

]"I didn't like having a termination, but it would have been immoral to give birth to a child that I felt strongly would only be a burden to the world.

[/b]

Ok.. I am not trying to get into the whole abortion debate, but this statement just dumbfounded me... i really am speechless... she's trying so hard to save the whales that she kills her children...

There are so so many couples who are waiting to adopt...........................................

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

the point is consumption ... more people = more consumption ... doesn't matter where the people are located.

Oh, it matters. In terms of share of world population, the US ain't all that big (roughly 5%). In terms of pollution, we're sure pulling a lot more weight than that - in the neighborhood of 20 - 25% if memory serves correctly. In light of that, "more people = more consumption" is an equation that doesn't hold water.

[natty bumppo 297]

the point is consumption ... more people = more consumption ... doesn't matter where the people are located.

Oh, it matters. In terms of share of world population, the US ain't all that big (roughly 5%). In terms of pollution, we're sure pulling a lot more weight than that - in the neighborhood of 20 - 25% if memory serves correctly. In light of that, "more people = more consumption" is an equation that doesn't hold water.

and other countries aren't climbing the population curve and increasing consumption ?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

the point is consumption ... more people = more consumption ... doesn't matter where the people are located.

Oh, it matters. In terms of share of world population, the US ain't all that big (roughly 5%). In terms of pollution, we're sure pulling a lot more weight than that - in the neighborhood of 20 - 25% if memory serves correctly. In light of that, "more people = more consumption" is an equation that doesn't hold water.

and other countries aren't climbing the population curve and increasing consumption ?

Not nearly as disproportionately as we do.

[natty bumppo 297]

the point is consumption ... more people = more consumption ... doesn't matter where the people are located.

Oh, it matters. In terms of share of world population, the US ain't all that big (roughly 5%). In terms of pollution, we're sure pulling a lot more weight than that - in the neighborhood of 20 - 25% if memory serves correctly. In light of that, "more people = more consumption" is an equation that doesn't hold water.

and other countries aren't climbing the population curve and increasing consumption ?

Not nearly as disproportionately as we do.

so ... it's not happening ?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

the point is consumption ... more people = more consumption ... doesn't matter where the people are located.

Oh, it matters. In terms of share of world population, the US ain't all that big (roughly 5%). In terms of pollution, we're sure pulling a lot more weight than that - in the neighborhood of 20 - 25% if memory serves correctly. In light of that, "more people = more consumption" is an equation that doesn't hold water.

and other countries aren't climbing the population curve and increasing consumption ?

Not nearly as disproportionately as we do.

so ... it's not happening ?

Where did I say that?

[natty bumppo 297]

the point is consumption ... more people = more consumption ... doesn't matter where the people are located.

Oh, it matters. In terms of share of world population, the US ain't all that big (roughly 5%). In terms of pollution, we're sure pulling a lot more weight than that - in the neighborhood of 20 - 25% if memory serves correctly. In light of that, "more people = more consumption" is an equation that doesn't hold water.

and other countries aren't climbing the population curve and increasing consumption ?

Not nearly as disproportionately as we do.

so ... it's not happening ?

Where did I say that?

so you're saying it ?

while the US may consume the most per person ... more people still means more consumption.

How can a person exist without consuming (they need to eat and be clothed)?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

the point is consumption ... more people = more consumption ... doesn't matter where the people are located.

Oh, it matters. In terms of share of world population, the US ain't all that big (roughly 5%). In terms of pollution, we're sure pulling a lot more weight than that - in the neighborhood of 20 - 25% if memory serves correctly. In light of that, "more people = more consumption" is an equation that doesn't hold water.

and other countries aren't climbing the population curve and increasing consumption ?

Not nearly as disproportionately as we do.

so ... it's not happening ?

Where did I say that?

so you're saying it ?

while the US may consume the most per person ... more people still means more consumption.

How can a person exist without consuming (they need to eat and be clothed)?

I did not dispute that every person consumes. I disputed your equation and claim that it stands no matter the location of the people. And I still do.

On average, 1 person in America consumes more than 10 people in some third world country. Hence it matters where the population growth takes place. If we had the kind of population growth rates of third world nations coupled with our excessive consumption, the planet would be seriously fcuked.

[garya505 2]

I think it's better that folks like her don't procreate. Imagine the madness down the road...

Actually she already had a life created in her, then killed it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I think it's better that folks like her don't procreate. Imagine the madness down the road...

Actually she already had a life created in her, then killed it.

Yeah, that's the tragic part of the story. I was talking more of her having herself irreversibly sterilized thereafter.

[natty bumppo 297]

the point is consumption ... more people = more consumption ... doesn't matter where the people are located.

Oh, it matters. In terms of share of world population, the US ain't all that big (roughly 5%). In terms of pollution, we're sure pulling a lot more weight than that - in the neighborhood of 20 - 25% if memory serves correctly. In light of that, "more people = more consumption" is an equation that doesn't hold water.

and other countries aren't climbing the population curve and increasing consumption ?

Not nearly as disproportionately as we do.

so ... it's not happening ?

Where did I say that?

so you're saying it ?

while the US may consume the most per person ... more people still means more consumption.

How can a person exist without consuming (they need to eat and be clothed)?

I did not dispute that every person consumes. I disputed your equation and claim that it stands no matter the location of the people. And I still do.

On average, 1 person in America consumes more than 10 people in some third world country. Hence it matters where the population growth takes place. If we had the kind of population growth rates of third world nations coupled with our excessive consumption, the planet would be seriously fcuked.

enter more countries ... India ... China ... etc

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

the point is consumption ... more people = more consumption ... doesn't matter where the people are located.

Oh, it matters. In terms of share of world population, the US ain't all that big (roughly 5%). In terms of pollution, we're sure pulling a lot more weight than that - in the neighborhood of 20 - 25% if memory serves correctly. In light of that, "more people = more consumption" is an equation that doesn't hold water.

and other countries aren't climbing the population curve and increasing consumption ?

Not nearly as disproportionately as we do.

so ... it's not happening ?

Where did I say that?

so you're saying it ?

while the US may consume the most per person ... more people still means more consumption.

How can a person exist without consuming (they need to eat and be clothed)?

I did not dispute that every person consumes. I disputed your equation and claim that it stands no matter the location of the people. And I still do.

On average, 1 person in America consumes more than 10 people in some third world country. Hence it matters where the population growth takes place. If we had the kind of population growth rates of third world nations coupled with our excessive consumption, the planet would be seriously fcuked.

enter more countries ... India ... China ... etc

The ratios - with some variances - remain. Location matters. It's not that hard to understand.

[natty bumppo 297]

the point is consumption ... more people = more consumption ... doesn't matter where the people are located.

Oh, it matters. In terms of share of world population, the US ain't all that big (roughly 5%). In terms of pollution, we're sure pulling a lot more weight than that - in the neighborhood of 20 - 25% if memory serves correctly. In light of that, "more people = more consumption" is an equation that doesn't hold water.

and other countries aren't climbing the population curve and increasing consumption ?

Not nearly as disproportionately as we do.

so ... it's not happening ?

Where did I say that?

so you're saying it ?

while the US may consume the most per person ... more people still means more consumption.

How can a person exist without consuming (they need to eat and be clothed)?

I did not dispute that every person consumes. I disputed your equation and claim that it stands no matter the location of the people. And I still do.

On average, 1 person in America consumes more than 10 people in some third world country. Hence it matters where the population growth takes place. If we had the kind of population growth rates of third world nations coupled with our excessive consumption, the planet would be seriously fcuked.

enter more countries ... India ... China ... etc

The ratios - with some variances - remain. Location matters. It's not that hard to understand.

It is easy to understand that a consumer is a consumer (a mouth to feed, cloth, etc) ... that is the basic point. the ratios being tossed only indicate excessive usage ... there is still the basic usage. Example: everyone consumes the same ... have a positive population growth ... consumption increases

Edited November 27, 2007 by Natty Bumppo