This is unfair to women; it would be another abuse, another discrimination to add to the list. As usual, it would condone men's irresponsability and place the burden on women's shoulders.

The solution is women's empowerment: when women attend universities, have jobs, when they are financially independant and in control of their destiny, they use birth control and they have few children; the poorer and the more discriminated they are, the more children they have. In Western countries, the birth rate is around 2 children, even less, which is adequate to control the overpopulation problem.

by francine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 385 comments) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 4:23:53 AM

  (0+)

It is somewhat true that birth rates tend to drop in industrial societies. But please note what parts of the society do that. Bluntly, right now the human race is undergoing a major evolutionary change. Just for your information, evolution is almost entirely a negative phenomenon. It can occur against some characteristic very, very rapidly. One or two generations can virtually remove an allele from the gene pool.

 The characteristics that have been radically selected against for the past two generations are exactly those that feminists prize - at least in Western society.

But not all societies do it that way. And those that do not are change the proportions of the ethnicities in the world very, very rapidly. Those that are growing the fastest are precisely the harsh patriarchal societies (Islam is one) that you abhor.

In other words, a few more generations, there won't be many women that think like you do. Those Western women who are reproducing will be the descendants of those that have the strongest urge to reproduce. But that proportion of society in the world will be much smaller than today.

by John Toradze (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 85 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:50:03 AM

  (0+)

you write:

"The characteristics that have been radically selected against for the past two generations are exactly those that feminists prize - at least in Western society.

But not all societies do it that way. And those that do not are change the proportions of the ethnicities in the world very, very rapidly. Those that are growing the fastest are precisely the harsh patriarchal societies (Islam is one) that you abhor.

In other words, a few more generations, there won't be many women that think like you do."

Are you suggesting that political opinion is biologically determined?

by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:49:37 PM

  (0+)

Are you suggesting that political opinion is biologically determined?

Two things matter here. First, take a hard look at the women around you who have reproduced the most. Those alleles that code for hormonal levels, neurotransmitters, etcetera, are inherited. Realize that the more liberal a society, the more it gives women a choice, or even puts ideas in her head that obstruct her reproduction, the stronger the selection is against women who are what you would call, smarter, stronger, more sensible.

Likewise, the inverse is true. The less choice women have in reproduction, the more selection occurs against women who are less smart, less sensible, etcetera.

In other words, it is pretty easy to see if you think about it a bit that evolution favors airheads in a liberal, safe, wealthy society and cautious, shrewdness in a conservative society where women are in unsafe.

Additionally, cultures and ideas also evolve. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme Women who have the kinds of ideas that you do, do not transmit them to their daughters as well because they either have no children or only one or two.

by John Toradze (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 85 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 1:04:07 PM

  (0+)

"Two things matter here. First, take a hard look at the women around you who have reproduced the most. Those alleles that code for hormonal levels, neurotransmitters, etcetera, are inherited."

Okay, one woman had four kids and is very liberal by most definitions. Another had two kids and is very conservative.  Another conservative had one; another conservative had two; and a liberal had two.

"Realize that the more liberal a society, the more it gives women a choice, or even puts ideas in her head that obstruct her reproduction, the stronger the selection is against women who are what you would call, smarter, stronger, more sensible."

Your assumptions have confused me; which type of woman are you calling smarter, stronger, more sensible?  The women I mention who had fewer children are conservative; and I commend the value of having 2 or fewer children in this overpopulated world.

Likewise, the inverse is true. The less choice women have in reproduction, the more selection occurs against women who are less smart, less sensible, etcetera.

We live in a radically conservative society, to wit: the highest incarceration rate in the world, a poor educational system, lack of care for social justice and social progress so that corporations, including banks and any war industry can continue to profit; we lack universal health care; we poison our environment; we wage illegal wars and nobody goes to jail, etc. 

We also have a birth rate of a little over 1.  So, in this conservative society, we reproduce at about the rate we die.

So, before we can look at eugenics, you and I should agree on semantics. I think you're using words that mean one thing to you and another to me.

by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 8:19:58 PM

  (0+)

Sankara, I have to chime in with Francine.

YOur statement that WOMEN should be sterilized is sexist, unkind and takes the responsibility off men. It implies the thought: WOMEN are responsible for the over-population of the planet. WOMEN are responsible for getting pregnant.

HELLO? The man had nothing to do with it? Yeah right.

What an attitude, That's truly disgusting!

So women should be *subject to* such sterilizing missions? Would this become law, if you had it your way? How easy for men to squiggle out of their part in matters and how easy a way to project your own shadow onto women!

Let me also point out that some are trying to depopulate the planet. They put chemicals in our waters, pass laws allowing known carcinogens to be in our food while "quack" listing those against such heinous things. Others go to war for profiteering motives.

Is this how we should depopulate the planet?

I know this is not what you are saying but there's something about "Depopulation" that bothers me. It's like saying "I hate people". I know that's not what you are saying here, you are concerned about planetary survival and the good of mankind in so being concerned.

However the notion of "Depopulation" also has that other side to its coin. Something to think about too.

TAKE RESPONSIBILITY, YOU MAN!! GRRRRR!!! AAARGH woof!!

by Kathryn Smith (110 articles, 2 quicklinks, 43 diaries, 542 comments [23 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 8:12:21 AM

  (0+)

YOur statement that WOMEN should be sterilized is sexist, unkind and takes the responsibility off men. It implies the thought: WOMEN are responsible for the over-population of the planet. WOMEN are responsible for getting pregnant.

Last I checked, in modern society, with birth control, women are responsible for getting pregnant or not. But, I guess you subscribe to the idea that women are these stupid, fainting flowers who are utterly irresponsible for themselves?

HELLO? The man had nothing to do with it? Yeah right.

Last women's studies class I remember, there was a long discussion about how men are unnecessary because of medical technology, that sperm banks were a better option, and there was a long discussion about cloning to eliminate men entirely from the earth. Also, how two woman parents were so much better than a heterosexual relationship.

What an attitude, That's truly disgusting!

Oh, right. That's an intelligent argument. You don't like something, there for it is disgusting. So obviously everyone around should react to it like men react to baby diapers.

So women should be *subject to* such sterilizing missions? Would this become law, if you had it your way? How easy for men to squiggle out of their part in matters and how easy a way to project your own shadow onto women!

So tell me. How else are men going to take responsibility for women becoming pregnant? I'm all ears. I am also surprised to see that you consider pregnancy and childbirth to be the shadow side of men.

Let me also point out that some are trying to depopulate the planet. They put chemicals in our waters, pass laws allowing known carcinogens to be in our food while "quack" listing those against such heinous things. Others go to war for profiteering motives.

And notice, that none of those men who go to war or do such things is wanting for women to have children with. Women do have a wonderful way of washing their hands of the blood that got them their nice home. Or are you going to deed your house back to the Indian tribe that was genocidally cleansed off the land?

Is this how we should depopulate the planet?

Well, it sure isn't working very well. What you are talking about does not cut population significantly. Not one thing.  Even sending the men out to slaughter each other as was done in WWII to the tune of 100 million total or so doesn't cut the population. As Sankaran said, the men come home, and it doesn't matter how many there are left, the number of women doesn't change, and the next generation is larger.

I know this is not what you are saying but there's something about "Depopulation" that bothers me. It's like saying "I hate people". I know that's not what you are saying here, you are concerned about planetary survival and the good of mankind in so being concerned.

Actually, he is saying that if we don't depopulate this way, we will depopulate in horrific ways. Starvation, disease, endemic warfare in every part of the globe.

However the notion of "Depopulation" also has that other side to its coin. Something to think about too.

The "I hate people" side? Essentially, what you are protesting is the notion that you, or another female, wouldn't be able to reproduce as you like.

TAKE RESPONSIBILITY, YOU MAN!! GRRRRR!!! AAARGH woof!!

How? By refusing to have sex with a woman? By only having sex with female gorillas, and having humorilla offspring?

by John Toradze (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 85 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:20:32 PM

  (0+)

many of us women are truly embittered about men.

What attitudes!

You men would love to hold women down for the sake of your own damned EGOS.

You'd love to think that you have nothing to do with anything but that women have everything to do with everything.

You'd love to keep saying that women are stupid, incompetent, belong barefoot and PREGNANT and in the kitchen and are good for nothing else. You'd love to hold back their careers just so YOU can "shine" and show yourselves for just who you are...

 Egocentric, selfish, brutish bastards that many of you are!

Sorry if I offend many male readers here who may be just the opposite. I have been very grateful to those men who have taken the side of women when chauvanist, egocentric and brutish pigs like this man have posted. I thank those of you who *choose* to have a sensitive heart with empathy and concern for HUMAN BEINGS, not just for MEN and "The others" who should, after all, be wiped off the planet.

by Kathryn Smith (110 articles, 2 quicklinks, 43 diaries, 542 comments [23 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 8:16:34 AM

  (0+)

I think you both have it backwards.

I don't claim there is any good answer to overpopulation, but the advantage of this one is that it empowers women. Yes, empowers, not disempowers.

Men have historically disempowered women by chaining them to procreation and the limits it puts on women, not men. In fact, the prime disempowerment of women comes from their "god given" obligation to bear children. That is, to those chauvinists, the only reason there are women.

But sterilizing women only means those self-sacrificing women won't have their own children, or will have only one or two later in life. They can still adopt.

And by using the incentives to their social advantage, they will increase their social standing with education and resources they may not otherwise get from the males in charge.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that if the women were given the education and the incentives without the requirement to sterilize, the population growth will go down because women will become aware of the problem and will, of their own, have less children.

And this is a challenge women have to have power to address. Without power, they will remain the baby making machines the uneducated and empowered men want them to be. 

by Sankara Saranam (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 28 comments) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 9:49:18 AM

  (0+)

(and I also see where the others are coming from, overwrought as they are)....

But... I LIKE the idea of the incentives to have only one, or at most 2 children, and then get sterilized. The right incentives toward birth control really can impower Women with more choices if properly applied. To do the opposite is clearly counter-productive, especially in an age of shrinking resources. 

Perhaps these incentives can be applied to men, too, if we're really serious about de-population, or, as I'd prefer to call it, voluntary birth-control. 

Perhaps with such incentives, and an emerging operative ethos of "Less is more", like the Japanese voluntarily imposed upon themselves when they were in danger of over-running their small island, is just what we need to ward off the really horrific scenarios the Neocons, for instance, envision for us when they speak of eliminating the "Useless Eaters".  

by Bia Winter (6 articles, 2 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 760 comments [119 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 5:04:15 PM

  (0+)

You've just stumbled on the real solution which is better than the solution you first proposed.  Has anyone bothered to think what would happen if the industrialized nations devoted a portion of their resources to real foreign aid -- aid that would help poor countries grow economically instead of aid that is used to bribe corrupt ruling elites?  That would produce the results you want, women in the newly affluent societies would voluntarily limit the number of children they bear for the sake of their own career, intellectual, and personal advancement.

Your original proposal involving coercion and suppression of freedom is something we need to avoid if we want the results to be a society worth living in.  You may protest that we don't have time for industrialization and economic growth to bring all the women in the world to the point where they want to limit the number of children they have.  But that is just where the proposal for real economic aid comes in; it will speed up the process.

Robert Halfhill

by rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 325 comments) on Sunday, Nov 30, 2008 at 1:47:47 AM

  (0+)

Why are men allowed to post here about how women never seek wisdom (as in a previous diary) and how women should be sterilized to save the planet?

I am disgusted by this.

Rob, you need to do something about this. Editors should respond to such pigs as this and say "this is not acceptable, please revise and edit then we will post it".

Call it censorship. I call it boundaries and respect. Those of you who think there are no boundaries in life are suffering an extreme delusion which only will create chaos and mayhem. Is that what you want?

Editor response: Your other comment

"Egocentric, selfish, brutish bastards that many of you are!"

contains inappropriate, ad hominem content. The article writer proposes some extreme ideas. It's raised lots of discussion. Be warned, your name calling is not acceptable.  rob kall

by Kathryn Smith (110 articles, 2 quicklinks, 43 diaries, 542 comments [23 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 8:20:22 AM

  (0+)

Incentives means choice. It does not barbaric tactics, tying women down, and cutting out their innards

I titled this article Do the Math for a simple reason: Very few people do the math.  Very few see how central population is to everything we face, and of the few that do, very few see the central roll women play in it. 

This situation was not created by women or men in particular, but if blame should be laid on one or the other, it would have to be on men because men had most of the power over the course of human history.

But I am not blaming men because it doesn't help matters. I am simply pointing out the mathematics of the situation. And unless you find math to be sexist, then it behooves you to stop, do the math yourself, and come to your own conclusions without demonizing people.

Mind you, I am not saying this because I personally care what you think of me or my article.  Nothing you've said bothers or hurts or saddens me personally. I wouldn't even care if they took your advice and banished the article and me forever from Oped News.

I am saying this because the issue I am raising deserves more and better from you. Ignore the messenger. This isn't personal. Do the math and come up with your own solutions. But if you don't see a problem with population, and you don't see that women make babies, then your math is make-believe. Better solutions are surely out there, but they take the math into consideration. The math cannot be ignored simply because you can yell sexism loudly. 

by Sankara Saranam (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 28 comments) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 10:27:42 AM

  (0+)

Math:

Egg + Sperm = Baby

If the two met inside the man, the man would bear the baby.  Obviously, that is not so.  But saying that women make the babies is totally inacurate.  Women simply bear the babies.

And I would agree (to a point) that sterilization of women was a great idea in greater numbers if it were not so barbaric and destructive to women's health (often).  I'm surprised I seem to be the only mentioning this (though I have not read all the comments yet).

I wanted a tubal ligation myself but chose other methods so as not to hurt myself any more than necessary.  I chose to have no kids whatsoever and have never regretted my choice.

And those preaching religion as the answer here...  Wow... I don't even have the words to respond to that!  Yikes!   

p.s. I did not take the original article to be misongynistic at all.  Simply naive and misguided.  I'm not surprised at the anger in response to it but I do think it's unwarranted. 

by P. Alexandria (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 4:05:11 PM

  (0+)

Women grow babies, women nurture babies. Babies need mothers. A man, and males of most species, can literally orgasm and leave the scene.

The math is clear: nature sees the women's energy input as far far greater. Male sperm are cheap. Eggs are far more rare and precious to nature. Vasectomy will not reduce population because a woman can always find a man or a sperm bank to impregate her while men cannot find women to impregnate them. 

Simply put, your equation does not contain two equal values. It isn't 2 +2 = 4. It is more like 2000000 + 2 = 2000002.

That's the math, and yes, there are always men willing to give their 2 cents to any woman that wants it. 

by Sankara Saranam (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 28 comments) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 2:13:32 PM

  (0+)

Women DO have power beyond anything most of us even realize!

Why do you think the Fundies and Male Power are so rabidly trying to control womens' reproductive choices?

Besides, if we control our own bodies,,,WITH incentives that give us a quality of Life, and WITHOUT artificial pressures from "society" (read, Male society)! -we can be a whole lot more CHOOSEY about who we have babies with, when we're ready and willing!

End result: Fewer, but better Humans, Happier Women, less war-like men.

(The last one is just a Hopeful Hunch!)

by Bia Winter (6 articles, 2 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 760 comments [119 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 5:23:14 PM

  (0+)

And I object to both your proposal for censor ship, Robs Kall's censorship of the latter part of your comment, and the censorship of a still earlier comment being hidden.  Do you politically correct people realize the advantages we enjoy by not having to fear that our comments will be censored by some king, bishop, or some Nazi or Stalinist functionary?  Your language of boundaries could just as easily be used by any of the afore mentioned despots to crush your comments.

Read John Stuart Mill"s ON LIBERTY if you don't understand the advantages we enjoy of living in a society where the is relative freedom of speech!  And before you point out the various means by which censorship is accomplished in our own society, the solution is by removing those restriction on freedom of speech, not by inposing new  ones!

Robert Halfhill

by rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 325 comments) on Sunday, Nov 30, 2008 at 2:10:17 AM

  (0+)

Lots of great thoughts in this article about the need to dramatically reduce the population and why.  I've said since I was a kid that all of many of humanities problems would be drastically reduced, and some even eliminated, if there were just fewer of us!

But the author is only looking at a small slice of the pie here, and only in  strictly biological terms.

For starters, tubal ligation is no walk in the park and can permanently screw up a woman's body.  I know a couple of women who wish they had never done it because of what it did to them.  By comparison, vasectomies generally ARE a walk in park.   

Then there is the whole matter of human nature.  I do not want to bash men here, because in great part, men are simply acting as Mother Nature directs them.  Human beings are incredibly sexual by nature, both men and women, but it's the men who show the greatest inability to control libido, not women.

One of the keys to this problem is EDUCATION.  For both sexes.  teaching EVERYONE that their actions have consequences not only to themselves, but to their communities and even to the Earth.

Speaking as one of Earth's throng of unwanted children, I can tell you that my birth is due far more to the actions of my father than my mother.  She would not have chosen to have so many children.  Dad was insatiable however and their priest told my mother that opening her legs on a nightly basis to my father was her Christian duty.  The MALE priest.  He also taught the both of them that birth control was a terrible sin.

Now THAT was "education" of a cruel and particularly pernitious nature.  Religion is probably the greatest miseducator of all time.  It is anti-fact, anti-freedom, misogynistic and anti-choice. 

I would go on, but this would swiftly turn into a rant, and I think this article is going to inspire enough of those.

In short, the author of this article seems to me to be spectacularly naive.  And miseducated to boot.

by P. Alexandria (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 8:38:51 AM

  (0+)

It's amazing how you and other ladies see sexism in this article! I'm astounded! A man wrote it, the suggestion is that women need to be given more power by being given the choice, with incentives, to sterilize, and so it must be sexist. Basically, your argument is that men can't write anything about women unless it is non contentious, or else it will be deemed sexist. 

Did I miss a meeting? Is sexism the new anti-Semitism? 

No, I'm not racist, sexist, mysogynistic, or anything of the sort, and for all the accusations that I might be against women in some way, none of the comments have actually pointed out how I am being sexist. It is just a knee-jerk reaction.

Case in point, I am not saying that there should be mandatory sterilization of women or anybody. I am saying that women, not men, should be given the incentives to sterilize because the sterilization of men is not effective in curbing population growth. I am saying that those incentives will also balance the inequalities in society caused by ... sexism!

How is anything that I wrote sexist aside from the fact that it is a man writing about a social issue that centers on the way nature made us: with women being the ones that have the babies?

If you don't like that, take it up with nature.

But I would like to say that I think this discussion is great. I'm glad to see the issue is getting some juices flowing. But if my suggestions stink, great, share your own. That's the point. And see if you can make it practical. Solutions that are little more than "belling the cat" are useless.

Because when it comes down to it, depopulation requires someone to make sacrifices, and it's a lot easier to sacrifice for others when others are sacrificing for you. Which means one thing in my suggestion: men have to sacrifice too! They have to sacrificing by ceasing to horde the wealth, education, and power. 

by Sankara Saranam (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 28 comments) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 10:08:20 AM

  (0+)

As a woman, I have to say that I don't think it's sexist to point out that woman bear the children.  

I do think that it's against human nature to think that empowered women would put up with 10 men impregnating 100 women!

As an ER nurse, I see a lot of people who are piss poor parents.  Interestingly enough, everyone who works in an ER for very long spontaneously comes up with the idea that people should be sterilized.  It's interesting.  Old, young, conservative, liberal, black, white, everyone "invents" the idea that other people should be sterilized.  And they announce it by saying, "I've thought of a theory".

As a progressive, I don't admit that I think the same thing.  And, really, I don't.  I don't believe that the Government should force sterilization.

I do, however, believe that people should be paid to be voluntarily sterilized, women and men.  $5,000 for men, and $7,000 for men.

And not just poor people.  Everyone.  It needs to be across the board.  

Most people do get sterilized after 2 children, anyway.  But there are those who give reproduction a very bad name.

I had a patient who told me that her 25 y.o. neighbor just had her 9th child.  The neighbors were after her to get her tubes tied, but she wants to have 15 children, "to make it into the Guiness Book of World Records".

When I informed the woman that 15 children is in no way a world's record, she was shocked.  Apparently, the neighborhood just accepted the goal.  

Now wouldn't you think that this girl would look up the world's record before she tried to break it?   But she's dumb as a rock.  (My co-workers met her, and were impressed by her stupidity).

I bet that if she could make $7,000, though, she would stop trying for the record.  And the world would be 6 potential stupid people fewer.

Doctors give women asking to be sterilized a hard time.  My co-worker told me how she begged to be sterilized after her first child, but the doctor said she was too young.  Then, after her second son, he told her she needed a girl!   She insisted, and got her tubes tied.  But she is responsible.

I have a patient who I've known for years.  She is now pregnant with her 9th child.  She told me that during labor with her 6th, she asked to have her tubes tied, but the doctor refused.   She is WAY too irresponsible to plan ahead for a sterilization.  She only has one of those children with her.  The state has taken the others from her, because she is a horrible mother.  But that doctor refused to give her a tubal.  

As it is now, only the responsible quit breeding.  People too careless to use birth control produce multiple children.  

If we had a VOLUNTARY rewarded sterilization program, we could have a much better society.  Plus, the money could help young people with college, or buying a house, or traveling before settling down.  It would be a real boon to society.

by wagelaborer (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 307 comments [34 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 10:48:55 PM

  (0+)

Reproducing too much is non-biological in what way?

Face it ladies. You are biological baby-makers, and it is what your being in the world is about. If anyone attacks that, they are attacking your "selfish genes" which want to reproduce and continue through time.

by John Toradze (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 85 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 1:07:22 PM

  (0+)

are quite capable of doing the depopulating on their own, without any other intervention. I have heard it argued quite reasonably that we have as many people as we do on the planet only because of the abilities conferred on us by a petroleum energy economy. It is quite clear that we are lurching through the final, violent stages of that regime.

Population levels will always be self-regulating, albeit more or less violently so. It is something that we have in common with every other organism on the planet, and something that we will never escape, without regard to our technological prowess.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1793 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 8:50:01 AM

  (0+)

Most people don't realize that there is a solution to this problem, and one not of force of sterilization. We were also concerned about population, having learned some thirty years ago the mathematics of it, but by turning to God He will lead you to a mate, and He will lead you to have children when the time is right. We have three boys and they are five and eight years a part, which gave us time with each one when they were youngest.

Of course, He has other suggestions, like not having the men put their seed into women unless the couple intends on having children. You can have all the sex you want, just don't start a life that you might think to destroy later because it is inconvenient. He tells us that an advanced society is reverent with all of life and abortion is not reverent. It has to do with humanity's speciel memory.

Come to think of it if every turned to God for guidance, which is the pattern that JeSus Immanuel, the Christ, gave us, then we would know what to do when so that we would have everything we need, the children He wants, and no one would be without. Our life is testament that this can happen, and not in any sort of religious fantasy sort of way. God is never a religion, but He does want us to live happy lives.

Thank you for your article, though, we now know what thinking we want to weed out of our children and schools.

by Jenny Miner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 85 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 8:50:26 AM

  (0+)

Turning to which god? You write as if human beings only invented one god, and that is Yahweh. 

There are thousands of gods. What if I turn to Aphrodite and she wants me to fornicate until I drop? What if I turn to a fertility cult and its gods and goddesses? What if I turn to Siva and he commands me to be celibate for life? The world is a lot bigger than the provincialism you express.

You can mystify your life and your procreative actions, but it is just you projecting onto a god the attributes that reflect your own sense of self. Basically, you are sanctifying your life. The price of that is that other lives are then profane. Is it any wonder that this is the attitude about the world, nature, humanity that got us into the messes we are in, in the first place? 

The god in Genesis is a personification of nature. No god commanded humans to be procreative. That story simply acknowledges that humans are compelled by nature to procreate. A god that did make such a command would be pretty ignorant anyway, to not know that humans are already sexually driven. 

by Sankara Saranam (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 28 comments) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 10:16:59 AM

  (0+)

that we know intimately, and not some fantasy that we just believe in, is not something of our creation, we are of His creation and as we are a part of His Body/Mind our only function should be to serve that Body/Mind just as we want the cells of our body to serve us.

What you see in your mysticism is the alien mind and it is leading you astray. God made us human, and He made us male and female, and He gave us the wonderful gift of sex to procreate as according to His will, if we would seek it.

We know where the alien mind is leading you, and it is ultimately leading to sterilization of the human race entirely, so that we have to clone to have children. Think this is lunacy? That's where the alien mind is and it is insane, having rejected God and wanting to destroy humanity because God has found a potential within humanity that is worth saving.

As a woman, we have never found pregnancy to be a burden, but only the greatest joy we hope that every woman can have that wants to have it. However, some women are being made sterile through immunocontraception, through vaccines and without their consent, and if that isn't force, then we don't know what is. They could introduce these immunocontraception factors in any kind of vaccine, just like they have put Thimerosal or squalene in vaccines which dumb us down or cause us to have auto-immune diseases like many of the Gulf vets have suffered under, though that caused by DU, and other pharmaceuticals that they were given. This is all intentional negative eugenics and you have bought into it.  

by Jenny Miner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 85 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:22:46 AM

  (0+)

Every peoples on this planet will say that about their gods. You are not the only one. Gods have come and gone. Even Yahweh has changed over the centuries. The Yahweh of thousands of years ago is different than the Yahweh of today because people changed. Even so, the Yahweh in your mind is different than the Yahweh in the mind of other monotheists living today. Yet you claim, as they all do, that your Yahweh is the right one, and the other Yahwehs are wrong, not to mention that other gods of other cultures are just fantasy.

Can we stop playing this game of make-believe now?

The mysticism you decry is at the heart of every religion. It is the sanity seeded in religions before they develop into divisive superstitions. It is the common link to them all: that human beings have ever strived through asceticism and looking within to find a larger self.

The heros of Judeo-Christian identities are mystics and ascetics.

As for alien minds, are we talking about little green men? Or grays? What is this all about? No where in my article do I suggest or condone forced sterilization. No where do I hint at a subversive means of reducing population, whether through biological agents or bulettes.

Murdering people or forcefully sterilizing them may share a single similar consequence with my suggestions in that they reduce population, but to compare the two on moral or ethical grounds only means the standard of right and wrong that you subscribe to ignores behavior, conduct, and the sense of human identity expressed through action. Yes, sounds like Christology, as if anything could be more unjust than the notion of vicarious atonement.

Such a world view is simplistic and dangerous. It creates black and white, sacred and profane, God and Devil -- and this is not the world we live in. This cosmos is not the creation of any god, Yahweh or Brahma. Those are myths will larger truths behind literal readings. Our eternal souls are not at stake, with heaven or hell as one of two final apotheoses. All these ideas were born in the Dark Ages, and through education, we will leave them behind.

(Ironically, the verb for create in Hebrew, bara, may very well be cognate with the name Abraham, and also with the verb for create/expand in Sanskrit: Bri. Brahma and Abraham are probably close cousins.) 

Read my book, God Without Religion. It received five awards in the category of religion. It will ask questions you have never asked before. And in questions are our capacity to reclaim power stripped from us by blind belief. 

by Sankara Saranam (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 28 comments) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:05:26 PM

  (0+)

Sankara, because God speaks to us in our mind empathetically and guides us and teaches us and heals us, we know Him. He has told us that most of what religions do is "Holy sh*t". However, they have kept the Bible alive though they don't understand it mostly and try to whitewash the contradictions. The Bible is somewhat of a barrier to the alien mind. The problem with the Bible is that humanity does not understand that there are two minds at work on this planet, what we call the Mind of Man, or the Christ Mind, and the alien mind, which is what the religions call Satan.

Our mentor saw into the spirit and he could see the world of demons and he could see those who have lost their veil of God's protection, and he could see monkey demons hanging on people causing them to do odd things continually, and so we also know that the alien mind is real. We understand because we have watched our thinking for many years and have learned to see the alien mind as it attacks us, and when we call upon the Living God for understanding, He continues to aid us in separating us from that mind.

Even in the Bible there were two minds at work, and sometimes the alien mind was called Lord, too.

You do not condone forced sterilization, but you put us on the path that the alien mind pursues. That is all we say.

The alien mind works through humanity, and possibly aliens; we have never had encounters with a living, breathing alien to know. However, we suspect that there are aliens on this planet, and that they are a part of the alien mind. Richard Shaver called them Deros, or degenerated robots, and he knew they worked through the priests and mobs to kill JeSus Immanuel, and he knew they would eventually kill him and they did, as they worked through the military/industrial, theocratic complex to kill our mentor. They work by mind, through our mind, and can project fear, hate, shame, greed, lust, guilt and prejudice, which they hope we justify. Those like Pres. Bush who have a demon surrounding his head like a cloud, think they hear god, because the entity whispers to him in his mind, but it is a demon.

We don't have blind belief, Sankara, we have understandings given by God because we wanted to know the truth and we wanted to help our people.

We had a friend whose mind was opened up to the alien mind through an est-like emotional clearing seminar. This entity that worked through her made her feel "born again" and it gave her a "light vision". This is what the alien mind does to catch people into religion. It also performed a miracle and teleported her. She thought it was god, but the fruits of it in her life were not good. We must always look to the fruits.

Our world with God to guide us is not dangerous. We have never harmed anyone or caused anyone any harm, except that God does work through the conscience to help our people evolve and sometimes that is painful emotinally. He works ever so peacefully and quietly. The god of religions that you relate to what you think we have, is not the same. It works through force.

We have read much on your website and do not need to read your book, because we are living it. We agree with most everything you say, but there is right and wrong, and there is a God and there is a Devil. Both work through the mind of humanity, though God works a little differently, and it is up to us to gain an understanding about this so that we can separate ourselves from the alien mind.

We could give you more information if you are interested. By the way, the alien mind has their demons at the entrance to every store, restaurant, place of business, school,etc. They know more about us than we know about them, and unless we turn to the Living God and gain His counsel, we won't ever free ourselves of their machinations.

by Jenny Miner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 85 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 3:01:58 PM

  (0+)

They've landed!

by Bia Winter (6 articles, 2 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 760 comments [119 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 5:35:22 PM

  (0+)

Many of the worlds religions preach procreaton, are against birth control, absolve personal responsibility, promote war and violence, etc.  Simply turning to God is not the answer.

I understand completely where Sankara Saranam is coming from.  He is saying that from a purely biological standpoint, it only takes one man to impregnate many women.  It seems to me he has a very valid point. 

I agree with Francine though that men must take responsibility too.   Contraception of all kinds must be made available to people.  

While sterilization is a possible solution, it is by no means the best or only solution.   I believe that all people should be given the education, work, financial means, emotional support, and other assistance they need to be able to choose wisely.  I believe that churches should preach responsiblity rather than unlimited procreation.

And this whole arguement is a good one for same sex marriage.   Marriage should not be tied to procreation.   And this is a favorite arguement by many organized religions to oppose same sex marriage.

by Ladyekait (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 2:50:07 PM

  (0+)

we mean that we must turn to God and wait for His answer. He does answer, because our life is testament to Him, and He might not speak to you, because He did not always speak to us, but He came in dreams, in the still, small voice, in "knowings", and in inspirations. Forget religions, that is not turning to God. Don't listen to pastors or popes, they do not have God's counsel usually. God never wanted religions, He simply wants a relationship with each of us. In this way, He can guide us and help us with our problems. Too many people rely on the authority of others, and they can lead us astray.

Yes, we must all take responsibility for our lives, but God is there to guide us and we have seen that His vantage point is definitely better than our own. He sees Time as All One and into the hearts of men, and He knows things that we just don't know. We can give you examples if you want them.

Most forms of birth control are harmful to humanity, especially the estrogens because of their pollution to the environment. They are wreaking havoc with the endocrine system of lesser forms of animals, and even humans, especially through the water supply. IUDs have know to cause problems, and condoms break. However, if a man does not put his seed into the woman, that works perfectly.

We don't usually quote Bible passages, because we did not get to God through the Bible. We got to God because we asked for truth, and it came through the book our mentor wrote titled, "The Golden Reed." Our mentor heard God's voice, through His Messenger, and shared the truths he was given, and he was killed by the military, industrial complex which is backed by the religions, and possibly the same ones that procreate with abandon.

Our mentor told us that a species will not overpopulate unless they are being threatened, and we are being threatened continually.

by Jenny Miner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 85 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 3:30:23 PM

  (0+)

Just turn to Gawd, or Allah, or whatever meme you prefer and the world is hunky-dory!

by John Toradze (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 85 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 1:09:01 PM

  (0+)

but we could surely make it better.

When God became a constant, conscious companion, His first agenda was to expose a 50+ man illegal drug cartel and satanic coven that was operating in what was once our hometown community. They were professional men, physicians, dentists, attorneys, public servants and business men, some that we knew, but we did not know this about them. God did and He wrote to them and encouraged them to put down what was not serving the youth. Drug can not only damage the genetics of future generations and lower our immunity, they can cause what He calls "dissimulation" where the mind is opened up to the alien mind. We can explain more on this later if you wish, but even prescribed SSRI drugs can open up the mind as Gary Null documents on his video, "The Drugging of Our Children."

The point is that without God's vantage point, we would have never known about this drug cartel. In fact, He has exposed over 30 similar white-collar drug cartels across the nation. God is here for the Children and drugs are harming them.

The trick is, that we must be willing to gain in understanding and to listen. Praying is not about endless speaking. Prayer is about endless listening.

by Jenny Miner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 85 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 3:38:09 PM

  (0+)

Would that include intentional propagandization and dumbing-down our children in schools designed only to serve the State or the State Religion?

What about personal responsibility and free will?

by Bia Winter (6 articles, 2 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 760 comments [119 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 5:54:59 PM

  (0+)

I have the highest regard for yogic traditions and am having trouble understanding how one came to such a conclusion. While I agree that we literally create our own problems, overpopulation is not the root cause.

Reproduction is not compulsory. It is voluntary. What is needed is to cultivate shared and individual responsibility. What would help is to raise living standards of the very poorest. That has been shown time and time again to reduce reproduction rates. No. We cannot all "live like kings," but we could choose to live for other things than material exces, conquest and exploitation of others.

Or we could 'stay the course' and watch while the toxins in our food chain continue to curb our reproductivity.

On a related note, folks might be interested in this article: "Reducing the Risk of Human Extinction" (click here)

by Jack Flanders (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 8:57:54 AM

  (0+)

Civilization is based upon the principle of control of energy. Without the control of energy, surpuls energy cannot be generated. Without efficient use of energy, civlizations are not sustainable.

Human procreation is a technology. It is nature's technology developed over billions of years.

Now put the two together: Energy and Technology.

With surplus energy comes a choice: Where to invest the surplus energy? Surplus energy creates complexity, as in social complexity. It creates specialization and astronomically increases the rate of change.

In the last century, a great deal of the surplus energy produced by burning oil was used to power the procreative technology. The technologies of agriculture fed the procreative urge by feeding billions more people.

Human progress does require humans, and specialization, but it does not require billions of humans. Even so, we invested surplus energy in quantity, having more humans, instead of quality, having smarter humans, better educated humans, socities where debt was not a way of life, space-faring humans, spiritual humans, etc.

Right now, the challenges we face are in the ways in which we invested surpluses of energy in the last 150 years. That is the root, but if the solution is to stop investing surplus energy in population, that practically means starvation.

Gradual changes and gradual decline in population are less violent than sudden changes and sudden declines in population. I say we opt for the gradual way, but that requires awareness of the issues and concerted actions that are globally distributed. 

by Sankara Saranam (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 28 comments) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 10:37:38 AM

  (0+)

Although I was taught that civilization was built upon the advent of written language, I think civilization is built on (the surplus generated by) specialization and division of labor. The moment that happens, there is a contract, and a managed economy.

The connection between civilization and energy was explored in Thom Hartman's book, the Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight. The author makes similar points to your own regarding energy and population. Just as the financial bubble had to burst, so will the energy bubble inevitably burst. It has to.

The question is whether mankind can make this transition consciously or unconsciously. Is there any greater purpose other than one's self interest is a question that every person gets to answer for themselves.

I am not sure I agree that the surplus creates complexity. Increasing complexity is the Second Law of Thermodynamics (which I believe has actually been challenged very recently). But no doubt, complexity is increasing and the rate of increase is also increasing.

I also wonder if sustainability isn't a strategy or policy, rather than a byproduct of energy efficiency. Agreed, a sustainable policy would probably lead to efficiencies in many areas, but I see no clear agreement on what should be sustained.

We live in an expansionist civilization, not a subsistence one, and we seem to want to "sustain the expansion" which is impossible. It doesn't even work in banking where we write the rules and print the money. There is no model for it in nature - for good reason.

It is the Mind's vain attempt to make the impermanent permanent, and in a world of increasing complexity, that assures extinction. Ironic, isn't it?

by Jack Flanders (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:17:09 PM

  (0+)

While I agree that we literally create our own problems, overpopulation is not the root cause.

So if there were only 100 million people in the world we would still have: global warming, mass starvation, mass extinctions, ....?  

Reproduction is not compulsory. It is voluntary. What is needed is to cultivate shared and individual responsibility. What would help is to raise living standards of the very poorest. That has been shown time and time again to reduce reproduction rates. No. We cannot all "live like kings," but we could choose to live for other things than material exces, conquest and exploitation of others.

You need to get out more, and learn math better. With world population at 6.4 billion, and the developed world having about 1.2 billion, the numbers just don't work. The developed world uses about 3/4 of the world's resources, and a lot of that developed world lives in conditions that you would consider intolerable. If that use was flattened out, then the entire world would eat poorly, live like paupers, and they would do so only for one generation before everyone was on a 500 calory diet.

Bluntly, that won't work. It is ridiculous. It is put forward as a pie in the sky ivory-tower ideal in order to shake grants from the money tree.

by John Toradze (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 85 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 1:18:38 PM

  (0+)

 have to go one or the other. You have to admit Sankara is a brave human being.

Washington and Poland just moved the World closer to Nuclear War -- Unlikely

you might like this one as well.

Postponed, but Not Avoided

by Robert Singer (31 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 138 comments [4 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 9:00:11 AM

  (0+)

Seriously...  low-rent thinking.  Nothing brave about throwing out a silly and unworkable solution...

by Armon Pacetti (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 9:07:02 AM

  (0+)

Other methods less palatable Reducing the world population of 6.75b now, projected 9.2b by2075.  Current Population per centages Africa-12%, North America-8%, South America-5%, Europe-12%,,Asia (not India or China)-23% India-17%, China-20,%, Australia-.3% How to Stop growth or De-populate or Feed   1, Wars Religious, Racial, Prideful, Power.  2. Soylent (1973 movie)  3."Reduce" Prison, Hospital, Mental facility populations 4. Eliminate unproductive (exceptions$).  5. "Disease" and/or "innoculations" (Ebola). 6. "Sex Diseases" (HIV) and fear.  7. Selective Abortions.  8. Fertility control  9."Education". 10 "Other".  

by Butler2 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 9:09:01 AM

  (0+)

Mr. Saranam, you bring two scriptures to my mind, Genesis 1: 28 and Luke 23:29:

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:"

"For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed [are] the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck."

As far as I know, the first commandment is still in force, and it seems God knew it would create problems for us, but we're supposed to work together to overcome those problems (and, judging from later commandments and examples, killing and causing death on our own volition was NOT to be included among the solutions).  I perceive that you know of man's numerous attempts to "help nature along" and that you'd like to see us eliminate the need for that by voluntary depopulation.  Both philosophies are in gross error.  King David learned the "helping nature along" lesson the hard way, apparently being subject to hell for his murder of Uriah (even though he didn't use his own hand, see 2 Samuel 11 and Psalms 16:10).

If you really want to fight the elite organizations in the world and their forcing of their philosophies upon innocent societies, then use your gifts of education to alert the people how to work together without contributing to the perils mankind faces today.  There you may find frustration in achieving success, but the joy to be found in trying is beyond measure.

by Steve Osborn (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 9:16:42 AM

  (0+)

Slipshod Skankfudge in rancid piles, count them 15 round the table; brown and extruded through Brahma Bulls. Yanni honey bing bang ting tang stick it up your wing wang.

Fulla bulla macho culla young spring flower limp and dulla don't call me I'll call youla nit fit stink spit bumbly brainless trula and ne'er the neurons bleat. 

Well hell! makes as much spiritual sense to me as Mr. Magic's article...

by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 9:21:01 AM

  (0+)

This adds nothing to the discussion. And the person you mention is not even at the discussion table. He's somewhere in left field.

None of us know each other. Let's keep it that way and not act as if disagreement or agreement changes that fact.

Let's focus on the issues. If you have something constructive to say, please share it. But constructive will mean that it is not personal. 

by Sankara Saranam (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 28 comments) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 10:52:23 AM

  (0+)

Overpopulation => mass starvation, war, and the devaluing of human life.

Mass starvation, war and the devaluation of human life that leads to torture, and all the rest = psychopathic rubbish.

Therefore, reproduction = psychopathic rubbish.

by John Toradze (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 85 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 1:23:17 PM

  (0+)

So, since governments and their wars appear to have devalued life, your solution is to adopt their devaluations, and destroy more life, in order to somehow restore the value of life?

Brilliant.

by UncleSim (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 514 comments [74 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 3:04:48 PM

  (0+)

Incredible. You call it the worst idea ever, and then you propose my idea. 

What am I saying but that women should be given the incentives, not men, and those incentives should be education, jobs, money, training, and easy access to adoption?

AND, and let's not forget this: AND I say that incentives should STILL be given for women who have only one or two children. 

Women already have the choice of whether or not to sterilize. That does not change. The only change I am suggesting is that if they make the choice to sterlize or have fewer children, they should be rewarded.

Yes, it is slightly sexist ... in the favor or women. 

by Sankara Saranam (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 28 comments) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 10:48:55 AM

  (0+)

"Sterilizing women is the key to depopulation, and that may mean it is the key to humanity's harmonious survival. Incentives to depopulate in the form of cash, education, jobs..."

My point, Sankara, is that if you provide those incentives NOW, you won't have to take the extreme action of sterilizing women.  Women will choose not to have babies all on their own - as statistics already prove.

by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:20:06 AM

  (0+)

Let's keep one male per 1,000 females.  We don't have to kill the male babies, we could just castrate them as ancient societies did.

The Island of Lesbos practiced this successfully, keeping their population within the bounds of the resources it had to support them.

by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 10:10:05 AM

  (0+)

One male can impregnate all the females, which means that it does not reduce population unless SOME OTHER mechanism is in place.

It doesn't work because impregnation (what the man does) is cheap in nature. Nature provides plenty of semen. What is costly in terms of energy expenditure for nature is pregnancy. 

It's like you're saying we'll have less cars on the road if there are few gas stops in the cities, not less gas. Again, Do the Math. 

But if it did work, show us the math and prove it. Then, I'll be the first in line for sterilization. 

by Sankara Saranam (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 28 comments) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 10:58:44 AM

  (0+)

this is satire; see Rob's piece:

"Moron Warning This article is particularly for those who don't understand the anger that builds up from having taken and failed or under-achieved on college admission tests. This fury can be called SAT ire."

by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:02:05 AM

  (0+)

Some insects have 1 male per 1,000 females, for instance mosquitoes. They also have parthenogenesis, and the males only mate with some females. This is good enough for mosquitoes to be able to continue evolve because they have such rapid generation time.

For other insects like cockroaches, the females must mate. Sankaran is quite correct. You can eliminate 90%+ of the male cockroaches, and all the females will still find mates.  

Even in many large animals, it is normal for a small percentage of males to mate. Our close relatives, the gorillas, are an example of this. Gorillas are so genetically close to us that it is believed possible to have a sterile offspring, like a mule, from humans and gorillas. We are closer than donkeys are to horses, or lions to tigers.

Also - you want to examine societies, like Russia, where the male to female ratio has been less than roughly 1:1 for a while. Scarcity of males makes them more valuable, and that makes females compete for the attentions of males.  Believe me, your "sexism" baloney would go right out the window and you would be accepting what Russian women do, "One step above a monkey."

by John Toradze (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 85 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:41:22 AM

  (0+)

First of all, it is obviously much more efficient to sterilize men (rather than women), since one male can impregnate multiple females.  Secondly, Francine is absolutely right: When women have opportunities for education and equal status, reproductive rates go down.  The invention of contraception for women has been an important step forward, because it gave women more choices and control, but sterilization is not in that spirit.  Count me among those who considers this policy recommendation to be offensive.

by Mikhail Lyubansky (15 articles, 11 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 184 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 10:24:00 AM

  (0+)

Um, I'm not sure what numbers you use in your math equation, but you have it absolutely backwards. There is NO USE in sterilizing men PRECISELY BECAUSE all it takes is ONE MAN to impregnate SCORES OF WOMEN.

Do the Math. Buy a calculator. And if that machine fails you, apply some good old common sense. It never fails. 

by Sankara Saranam (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 28 comments) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 10:43:57 AM

  (0+)

Very true, and not recognized by most.

by Gallaher (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 990 comments [34 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:08:41 AM

  (0+)

The author of this article has thought through the overpopulation problem from the point of view of an engineer.  He deserves a lot of credit for being brave enough to even raise the issue.  Unfortunately, as is evidenced by some of the hysterical comments, the human brain is not logical.  We are political animals first and foremost and anything having to do with sex and reproduction automatically strikes an emotional chord.  Most can't even listen to what the person is saying.

Obviously from an engineering standpoint the human population must be reduced, and equally obviously the only way to tackle the problem is to sterilize (voluntarily or involuntarily) a large portion of the females. 

But since we are not logical animals we simply cannot address this problem humanely.  The human population will crash, and soon.  It will be absolutely horrific.  But unfortunately that's the way we come from the factory. 

It really should come as no surprise that we are programmed to overshoot and crash just like other animals.

by Tom Fugate (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 10:34:05 AM

  (0+)

from a mechanical, engineering standpoint, it is much easier medically to castrate 1000 males for every one we leave viable than it is to sterilize 1,000 women.  And, medically, it's much safer for males to be sterilized than for women. 

And, since males are biologically programmed with a sexual drive far stronger than females possess (generally speaking), it makes more sense to attack the problem at the supply line.

by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:29:11 AM

  (0+)

... and doesn't do a darn bit of good where population is concerned.

I am all for education before, during and after any incentive program would be developed. But even if you educate everybody about the issues of overpopulation, people need incentives to sacrifice that are closer to home than "the good of humanity."

I say those incentives should be directed to women, not men, because they will be more effective in curbing population.

You can give men all the incentive to not impregnante a woman, but a woman that is not given incentives will still always find a man or a sperm bank to impregnante her. And once you give her those incentives, the incentives to men are superfluous.

This is not rocket science. 

by Sankara Saranam (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 28 comments) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:15:13 PM

  (0+)

Rady Ananda said:

And, since males are biologically programmed with a sexual drive far stronger than females possess (generally speaking), it makes more sense to attack the problem at the supply line.

I wonder how long this would be true, if male sexuality were artificially reduced.  Currently, women are trained from puberty to say 'no' to all the requests they receive, so they get to pick and choose, and thus, appear somewhat less sexually aggressive than their male counterparts.

Strip men of their sexual urges, and we may suddenly see that women's urges are as dominant as we used to think men's to be.   Then we'll have new problems to solve.

Every political solution presents new problems.

by UncleSim (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 514 comments [74 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 2:02:51 PM

  (0+)

which means that we were given a mind with which to Reason and to seek God for His guidance, who could easily get us out of this mess of over population if anyone was listening. We don't have to crash and burn. It is precisely because we don't find God and gain His counsel that we do.

by Jenny Miner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 85 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 3:51:11 PM

  (0+)

Having read the article and most of the comments, I feel that most of the respondents miss the point.  That being that a woman can only have one complete pregnancy in nine months.  Then for her health safety, she needs at least three months to recover.  The result is once a year, for the most part.

 For a fertile man, when he is young, if the timing were right, he could impregnate thee or more women a week.  An older man could still impregnate one or two women a week.

 It is not about suppressing or empowering, it is about MATH.  A young man in very good condition could theoretically impregnate more than two hundred women a year, if his sperm were used invetro, it could be thousands.  A woman can only have one (or there abouts) pregnancy a year.

To be a bit 'mechanical', the production facilities must be closed down, not the supply line, because it takes so little 'supply' to support the production.

To get the same results of preventing 90% of the women from having babies, more that 99.9% of the men would have to be sterilized, ant that is assuming only active sexual reproduction.

 It is not arrogance; it is just the way the math works.

by kanawah (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 100 comments) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 10:37:42 AM

  (0+)

Castrate 1,000 males for every one that remains viable.

by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:25:35 AM

  (0+)

Geez, you can't just sterilize, you have to CASTRATE?!!

Let me guess, you hate men, right?

by UncleSim (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 514 comments [74 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 2:07:57 PM

  (0+)

Women blame everything on men. It is always the man’s fault to a woman if she gets pregnant.  Woman then believe they should have a choice after the sex that got them pregnant to dump the child. Does a man get the choice, No, because it was his fault. He must then pay for his crime for 18 years or more.

Asking women to be responsible for their actions will never happen.

by Gallaher (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 990 comments [34 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:15:56 AM

  (0+)

if the men just didn't put their seed into the women unless they intended on making a child. Seems that would be a reverent way to go about life. Have all the sex you want, just be responsible about it.

by Jenny Miner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 85 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 3:54:04 PM

  (0+)

When a woman gets pregnant, the responsability belongs equally to the man and the woman. However, if an unwanted baby is born, apparently the person above expects the woman to carry the financial burden, plus the material care alone for 18 years. Selfishness, no concern whatsoever for the children thus born, and a very sexist conception of justice to say the least.

"I don't claim there is any good answer to overpopulation, but the advantage of this one is that it empowers women. Yes, empowers, not disempowers."

That's a good one, reproductive castration empowers women. Would you say that castrating men empowers them? I doubt it.

In my travels in the Maghreb and the Middle east, I have heard that forcing women to wear a veil empowers them-it frees them from lusty male stares. In the West, I have seen arguments that prostitution, when not trafficked, empowers woman. Yeah, right.

This article is gender biased thinking at its worst. Do you really expect any woman to endorse your kookoo idea?

by francine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 385 comments) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:01:39 PM

  (0+)

I expect women who think it through will support it one hundred percent.

Why? Because no one is talking about forcing anyone to do anything. The only way you can attack my ideas is apparently to conflate them with barbarism. Can't you see the gross nonsequitur you are engaging in? Incentives to sterilize result in sterile women, so it is an unethical as forced sterilization because both result in sterilization?

I am saying something ultra-simple. Maybe that is the problem. It is too simple. But it is not simplistic and cannot be equivocated or reduced into something criminal.

I am saying that women's conctraception should be free. Women who consciously and willingly choose to sterlize should not have to pay a dime for it. Women who willingly choose to have less children should be rewarded for their self-sacrifice. Women should be freely educated concerning the challenges humanity faces in population control and understand the powerful role they play in the solutions. 

And no, men should not be given the same incentives because, if you do the math, the incentives will not translate into fewer human beings on the face of the earth. 

Read my book. I am as much a champion of women's rights as any man or woman. And yes, I believe that women have the right to make money on their bodies in any way they want. Two adults can exchange money, and that's OK. Two adults can have consentual sex, and that's OK. But somehow we are to believe that these two rights concurrently make a wrong. And it is just a conicidence that male, patriarchal religion is a powerful social force behind this warped ideology. I don't buy it.

It is a gross nonsequitur to think that respecting the rights of women to do whatever they want with their bodies, so long as it is not hurting anyone else, is the same as forcing women to act in a certain way. Respecting the right to prostitute for men and women is not the same as forcing prostitution or even encouraging it. It is merely respecting it and yes, I think women deserve that respect.

In fact, the opposite is the case. It's the same power grab that forces women into a certain mold and limits their freedoms. When that respect of women and their bodies is not given, it preceisely results in sex slavery.

by Sankara Saranam (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 28 comments) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:37:51 PM

  (0+)

I admit I reacted emotionally at first.  As I read thru your clarifications and responses to other comments, I can agree that:

Forced sterilization is off the table - for either sex.

Now, I have to admit I kinda like the idea of offering meaninful incentives to women not to reproduce.  Quality education, jobs or careers that provide a sense of accomplishment and meaning to the woman (and this is highly subjective, but it must be met)... amid a culture (and this is the hard part) that celebrates the sacrifice. 

by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 1:09:22 PM

  (0+)

and those who don't always think for themselves and of whom others take advantage. Some see the money and that is all they see. They belong to a lower speciel mind that is evolving and we need to teach them, not sterilize them.

by Jenny Miner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 85 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 3:58:38 PM

  (0+)

Jenny, those who only "see the Money" are obviously getting the wrong INCENTIVES...to which I would say, Sankara's incentives to sterilize would be most appropriate, whether you include God or not!!

by Bia Winter (6 articles, 2 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 760 comments [119 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 6:10:14 PM

  (0+)

There is not one woman on this thread that endorses your idea; all of them are deeply offended by it. Doesn't that tell you something?

A few pointers  if you want us to believe you respect women:

- when you discuss matters concerning women, listen to what they tell you, take into consideration their opinion, instead of railroading over them and enforcing your views wether they like it or not like you are doing now;

- let them make their own decisions regarding what they do with their bodies. Our bodies, our choices. Your proposal is about men making decisions about women's bodies; typical patriarchal attitude, it's so ingrained in you, you are not even aware of it.

To the editors of OpEd: Sterilization of women is  an absurd, perverse idea that has only been applied on a wide scale in nazi Germany. Why do you even publish such rants? If'd send you an article advocating male castration--an idea that is totally repellent to me by the way--would you publish it? Why does this otherwise great site gives a free ride to the worst possible form of misogyny?

by francine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 385 comments) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 1:04:11 PM

  (0+)

Francine,

Although I disagree with Saranam's ideas, I really must take issue with the plea to censor those ideas.

I disagree with his ideas because they can only work by the application of strong centralised pressure, which means strong centralized powers.

Strong centralized powers always over reach. That which begins as "voluntary" ends up as "mandatory" when the hysterics and the clerics get involved.

by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 1:58:04 PM

  (0+)

Actually, Nazi Germany forced women to reproduce.  It didn't force women to be sterilized.  Abortion was banned.

Some blonde, blue-eyed women were actually imprisoned and forced to breed with blonde, blue-eyed men, in order to produce more Aryan children.

Many people feel that their own race should reproduce, and not others.  I think that there are exceptional people in every country and among every race.  

Too bad it's not that many. 

by wagelaborer (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 307 comments [34 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:04:28 PM

  (0+)

how good people are at projecting their own shadows.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much...

It's absurd for the "men" here to assert that there's no male form of birth control. Baloney! Ever heard of condoms? Ever heard of vasectomies?

Ever heard of paying attention? It doesn't matter how many men get vasectomies. Women still have babies. It doesn't matter how many men use condoms. Women still have babies.  

Least of all, ever heard of respect?

Respect for what? Respect for irrational, insulting drivel like the rest of what you posted here?

You're a bunch of idiots showing us all who you really are. And you are clearly projecting your own idiocy onto others. Amazing. In fact, the accuracy of that projection of the reality within, is stunning!

Hmm. Projection is when a person sees their own faults in others. Apparently, in your universe, men are able to get pregnant, or else men are completely in control of women in order to use them for reproduction.

by John Toradze (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 85 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 2:11:41 PM

  (0+)

Once you instill this 'value' of depopulation, how will you get them to stop in time to prevent the extinction of humans?

Values are held by individuals, and in order to prevent extinction, you will need to establish two classes, breeders and depopulators.  There WILL be friction when/if the breeders' and depopulators' values clash. 

Today we have taxpayers and taxeaters, and you propose a system that alters that to pit the living against the dying.  No mention of eliminating the rift that divides, but merely of moving the line of coercion to suit your personal beliefs, and supported with dodgy reasoning.

If we MUST depopulate, I suggest we begin with this article's author and those of similar opinion.

by UncleSim (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 514 comments [74 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 1:21:09 PM

  (0+)

The human race is close to mass extinction only because there are too many people.

by John Toradze (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 85 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 1:25:11 PM

  (0+)

So, if too many individuals of a specie is indicative of its imminent extinction, then we have our values all wrong when it comes to endangered species.

We should be protecting chickens, cows, and pigs, dogs and cats, and ignoring the species with waning populations.

Overpopulation is not a problem.  Underproduction of food is.

And since you're too lazy to increase the food supply, you advocate reducing the demand.  Are you evil, stupid, or both?

by UncleSim (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 514 comments [74 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 2:16:15 PM

  (0+)

On a serious note, I am quite sure that Sankaran's proposal will not be adopted.

But - we should all be very clear what that means.

Not adopting a policy that cuts population to 1/6th what it is today - and keeps it there - means world war.

The war to come is going to dwarf anything that has yet been. It will probably knock most of us back to the stone age.

by John Toradze (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 85 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 2:14:26 PM

  (0+)

I suck at math, so someone please do the math to calculate how long it would take to reduce population if every woman was limited to one pregnancy, even if it doesn't produce a living or socially-viable child?

Interesting that the discussion didn't mention sterilizing people according to intelligence, race, or proclivity towards violent behavior.

by Susan Jolly (1 articles, 2 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 22 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 2:30:53 PM

  (0+)

honestly, I'm seriously thinking that economic incentive to not reproduce is the most humane way to go about the knotty problem of human overpopulation.

The math is simple; if every woman produces one child, we'll start seeing a population decline in about 15 years.  But you can't just talk about birth rates, you have to consider death rates, and immigration and emigration rates.

So the term population growth encompasses all of that.  About 20 nations have negative population growth (or population reduction), from About.com http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/zero.htm (not the best source, but the quickest):

Here's the list of the countries with negative natural increase or zero negative increase in population...

Ukraine: 0.8% natural decrease annually; 28% total population decrease by 2050
Russia: -0.6%; -22%
Belarus -0.6%; -12%
Bulgaria -0.5%; -34%
Latvia -0.5%; -23%
Lithuania -0.4%; -15%
Hungary -0.3%; -11%
Romania -0.2%; -29%
Estonia -0.2%; -23%
Moldova -0.2%; -21%
Croatia -0.2%; -14%
Germany -0.2%; -9%
Czech Republic -0.1%; -8%
Japan 0%; -21%
Poland 0%; -17%
Slovakia 0%; -12%
Austria 0%; 8% increase
Italy 0%; -5%
Slovenia 0%; -5%
Greece 0%; -4%

There's a lengthy but interesting article about the Economics of Chinese Birth Planning at http://economics.about.com/cs/moffattentries/a/birth_plan.htm.

The CIA estimates that as of 2007, the USA has a 0.894 growth rate.

by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 8:56:15 PM

  (0+)

The most important thing, is that we reduce the population to the point that when the Asteroid comes to destroy the earth, we don't have the technological resources to find a new place to live.

God said he's preparing a place for us in the heavens, because the earth will eventually fall away.  If we reduce our ability to pursue and find another home somewhere else in space, then we will be assured of our place in history.  PAST history, when the earth is destroyed.  Hopefully, we have much more time to advance ourselves than these fearmongers would have us believe.

The real question might be, how can humanity survive such a threat, if we don't have the human resources to make our salvation a reality?

The problem is not overpopulation, but overintervention into our lives by the fools who run our governments.  As Americans, it is easy to see all other governments as lacking.  Why is it so hard then, to see the shortcomings of our own government?

Jesus taught us that evil is in control of all the world's governments.  I don't think we can make such evil into a bearer of good gifts, no matter how good our intentions.  But some people, especially here, seem to think that if only the right people with the right ideas were in the right places, then all our problems could be solved.

But their solution is our demise!  The system prevents the right people with the right ideas from being in the right place, more than it helps anyone, except the tax parasite.

When there is more money to be made from weapons, war, and destruction than from providing food and medicine, then our government has failed in that constitutional responsibility called promoting the general welfare.

And now some folks want even more destruction?  The destruction of our sexuality, and something along the lines of 90% of the population?

Maybe you're right.  And maybe you should all be first in line when your program starts.  Those who do not value life, do not deserve it.

by UncleSim (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 514 comments [74 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 2:41:50 PM

  (0+)

Satan does not cast out Satan, and our government has broken every Law of God for many years. To give it the help it wants regarding population control, is to step into the trap they lay for us.

by Jenny Miner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 85 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 4:03:58 PM

  (0+)

Sankara - you wrote:

"I am saying something ultra-simple. Maybe that is the problem. It is too simple. But it is not simplistic and cannot be equivocated or reduced into something criminal.

I am saying that women's contraception should be free. Women who consciously and willingly choose to sterilize should not have to pay a dime for it. Women who willingly choose to have less children should be rewarded for their self-sacrifice. Women should be freely educated concerning the challenges humanity faces in population control and understand the powerful role they play in the solutions."

I suggest that maybe your article should have only contained the above words. Short and sweet. Then, if you somehow wanted to keep fueling the fires of indignant reactionism that your subject awakened, you could just re-post these few words as a response to every violent reaction that followed. 

Your article (whatever it said) and the discussion (?) that followed, provides us all with a very sad reflection of gender relations as they are today. The same attacks, reactions, dogmas, hyperbole and fighting slogans that may have been needed in the 70s to awaken us to the oppression of women became embedded in the psyches of people (of all genders) who still spew them out whenever 'sex' or 'gender' difference issues emerge. It rarely matters what the issue is or how it is presented. And even the usually gracious and  considerate among us are so instantly reduced to blathering attack that I am constantly amazed.

I have waited forty years for this reactionary nonsense to extinguish itself so that we can all begin the task of rediscovering who and what we are - including becoming aware of the positive differences and the socio-psychological liabilities that come with being male or female (or any creative variant on this basic polarity). This kind of hate, suspicion, paranoia and attack-react emotive ploys are what holds US apart. 

Of course, none of this bears on the math you set out to present in your article any more than the fact that men and women in the poorest (and hence least educated) parts of the world will not sufficiently benefit from the idealistic aims of 'better education' and 'social empowerment for women to choose' within any time frame that will allow successful intercession in our race toward population explosion. But the fact that even here, in this forum, we cannot discuss issues of female and male fertility and the relative contribution of each to planetary overpopulation, without raising the ire of Bible thumping zealots, anti-male hysterics, condescending male chauvinists, unbreasted inner children, the man-love/man-hate of unfathered daughters, adult males unfulfilled in their own sexuality, all washed over with some retrograde 70s left-wing feminist slogans to boot... stands as a really sorry commentary on where we are at as people. We are uniquely empowered on this planet with the luxury of wealth and time to even discuss eminent world problems - yet we cannot get over these primitive suspicions, hatreds and obsessive-reactive bullshit long enough to even entertain what might be (but should not be) a new idea. 

Sankara - Just as a communications tip, I think you might make greater inroads into helping people understand the situation we face as regards population if you didn't use the word 'sterilization' - especially when what you seem to be looking toward is a conscious self-limiting of procreation, using socio-economic 'rewards' as incentives.

Of ocurse, if you are really the manipulative anti-woman fascist that some have perceived, masquerading as a quasi-reasonable person just to incite men to further enslave women, AHA! Then I'll fight you too! Just give me a few words - any words will probably do, from what I've seen here - and you're on! On the other hand, if you really are such an evil kind of being... you're doing a very poor job of convincing me. Better luck next time! And namaste.

by Jai Daemion (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 4:02:44 PM

  (0+)

Look here, folks.

Nobody ever said that there isn't a valid problem with over-population. At least, only very few people said that. Those who said something in that vein were saying that it isn't the core problem: Even those people didn't deny that the problem exists.

That's not what we're arguing about here.

We are arguing about simple, deeply offensive, crude ideas of sterilizing one particular sex in order for the other to have free rein. In order for the other to have his grand illusion of superiority.

Why don't the MEN here take responsibility for their own sterility, instead of dumping it on the woman? Do you know how gross and repugnant the idea is of a society (automatically, if you had your way) sterilizing those who happen to be female?

Those of you who can't hear this, are openly and publicly declaring your chauvanism but much worse, your own callousedness. It's very abundantly clear. And yes, it is barbaric.

What a rationale to call this EMPOWERING of women. I suggest at this point, that any man who has the balls to say that should be castrated.

Do I say this of all men? Absolutely not. REpeat, and hear me very clearly: I said any MAN (singular) with the BALLS to say SUCH A THING frankly deserve it. Oh yes. And not that is not a generalization projected onto men: It is reserved for one or two, or three men brewing this witch's cauldron who made such statements. Let's be very, very clear here.

Those who have hatefully spewed have, by the way, earned my immediate decision not to read their posts. You know just who you are. I skimmed right past them and went right to those who show commonsense, balance and above all a sense of empathy and concern.

And when I posted about us women being embittered with men , those of you who jumped all over that statement missed a very important opportunity. If you only took note, you might find a way to rectify your obviously broken relationships with women. It's very clear from the way you write, that you must be having all kinds of troubles in your love life. You don't even need to tell me. Again it's clear. What's more is that I am not the only one who can see through this, as echoed by---imagine, such credibility---a MAN. Wowee.

Time to wake up and have a heart, guys. Relationships are not just about the sex act. It's about heart, soul, intellect, love . If it isn't that, we women want no part of it.

Thank God my husband has good sense and cares about women as human beings. Thank GOd I am no longer playing the singles field. Good god! Enough already. Time to sign off.

by Kathryn Smith (110 articles, 2 quicklinks, 43 diaries, 542 comments [23 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 4:19:20 PM

  (0+)

about Jenny Miner's use of her God's word in the doublespeak book called the Bible, where is says to revere multiple Gods, its support of incest, rape, murder, cannibalism, and a host of other inhumane activities.

As for population, its quite easy to not have children by withdrawing before ejaculation, but few men follow through as they are too caught up in the moment and egotistical to mark their territory like a dog pissing on trees.

I have been a teacher on 5 continents in multiple country's over the years and can attest that the world is full of idiots, and would not want any of my prodigy associating with them, that's why I have no children.

With many hypocritically believing in mysticism, or greedy for power and money, who blindly follow those who say they have the answers.

This is why we have the intolerant, stupid society's in the world today. With more mentally challenged humans adding to the problem instead of heeding solutions to rectify it.

by Stanimal (2 articles, 226 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 1254 comments [234 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 4:21:04 PM

  (0+)

is the defining characteristics for an advanced society. If the men can not be responsible, then they must suffer the consequences, not the women, because God holds the men responsible for the nation, not the women.

We are not a part of the Bible and you would know that Stanimal if you ever read anything we have written, but you keep aligning us with it and you are wrong. God is never a religion, and we use the Bible only as a bridge for understanding for some.

by Jenny Miner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 85 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 30, 2008 at 7:03:54 AM

  (0+)

To hold a boundary is not to censor.
Opednews has every right to reject written materials based on the chaos it has obviously created here.

People have a right to hold boundaries without the sore losers crying false claims of "CENSORSHIP!"
Get lost.

It's only governments who must not be allowed to censor our lives. They have power and control over us. Opednews has no such power. And as human beings, I fully respect their right to dignity, respect and smooth relationships on this forum. Anybody who wishes to crash such a boundary should get lost.

For the rest, talk about censorship: If the government gets in there and limits us to one pregnancy, they will be in our bedrooms. Now that is NOT censorship? DUH, Americans! THINK!!

by Kathryn Smith (110 articles, 2 quicklinks, 43 diaries, 542 comments [23 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 4:21:46 PM

  (0+)

Interesting Katherine...so it is YOU!! I knew you were out there somewhere, the one with the lexicon that counts. you will decide what is and is not censorship. I like that, we need someone to take charge and tell us who is and is not a barbarian.

So, "setting boundries" is what we call censorship now in the politically correct world. I couldn't wait to get here! I was feeling so "free" that I felt as though no one really loved me enough to reign me in.

Yes! Set up those boundries!! Ask for a permit next time you want to comment here.

BTW, I am not even on the authors side here...Lol

It's not that I don't think overpopulation is a problem. I just don't like the implications of such pressures being put on an individual, be they social or legal. In saying this, I'm not talking about a character in a Book; I think this issue needs to remain in the hands of God.

by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 5:53:51 PM

  (0+)

To anyone who thinks the world is over populated, do this math: Every person now living could fit within a one mile cube with plenty of space left over. It's not the number of people, it's the inequitable distribution of resources.

by Bill Cain (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 435 comments [67 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 5:06:25 PM

  (0+)

It takes about 10 square meters to sustain one human.

We DID the math on that in college - 6.6 billion humans and 148,940,000 sq. kilometers of surface area on the Earth.

It's simple division.  But you can just look at the numbers and see that there are too many humans.

yes, I totally agree, we do need an equitable distribution of resources; but that still does not meet the shortage of land per human.

by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 30, 2008 at 12:51:39 AM

  (0+)

Undoubtedly male birth control would be the most popular thing since Electricity. Men would jump at the chance to stop women from getting PG, especially young men.

Male birth control could solve over population in a heartbeat. Therefore, why hasn't it been invented? I assume it's because men don't want to take the health risks of Birth control meds that women take. Women swing from a vine over an Amazon River with BC meds(a metaphor). They cause heart problems, cancers, and other ill health. Would men take those chances? Probably not as often as women do.

I'm sure there is something that can block or destroy those sperms that like to swim. France will probably be the nation that brings the invention to forefront. Bush's faith based initiatives will be the thang that blocks such an invention. They will cry, "you're killing those innocent cells, those ppl to Be". Omg, help those creatures, LIVE, LIVE LIVE!

Dang, please someone, invent the sperm killer now.

by shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 592 comments [98 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 5:10:32 PM

  (0+)

I assume Sankara Saranam has had a vasectomy?  I mean, HE can prescribe sterilization for females but what about sterilization for men? Does the author believe in sterilization so much that he's ready to lead by sterilizing himself?

Every one missed something BIG!!!! Population sizes go down when all groups live decently!  If you want to eliminate over population, give everyone a decent life where they can self-actualize.  The population goes down dramatically!

But shock then stress people with poverty and they "naturally" tend to reproduce themselves more.  Maybe the biology of people think that people are under threat of death (isn't that what poverty does?), the body starts to reproduce itself more.   Sociologists, anthropologists, city planners, financiers and others know this but we live in a greed system where most of the wealth are accrued at the top of the hierarchy.

But if you want to reduce the population, let them live decently and the population will naturally reduce itself.

Then there is the depopulation going on right now.  I've written several articles about this, my recent called "Baby Boomer Die-Off" at click here to my research, all the Baby Boomers will be dead by 2025. They are automatically dying because it has been socially-engineered for this to happen.  The depopulation of the hidden elite has begun a long time ago.  It's in our food, drink, water, medicines, innoculations, social systems, economic systems, so forth.

There is nothing wrong with female fertility: the one thing that men have always been obsessed with. This is the premiere reason why women are still so marginalized.

Again, change the world structure to be fair for everyone and there will be no over population... 

by Martha Rose Crow (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 44 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 5:16:13 PM

  (0+)

(Honestly, implying that women produce babies by themselves.  Sheesh.)

by Jill Herendeen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 213 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 30, 2008 at 9:27:50 PM

  (0+)

But not really.

I didn't have a vasectomy. Instead, my wife and I waited to have children. Our average age was over 30, and we had two. I wanted only one, and she agreed at first. But then a few years went by and she decided she wanted one more. Although I reminded her of my principles regarding population, she didn't really need to say much more than that she wanted one more because I know how responsible she is and that she already weighed all that.

Anyway, by extending the generation, I do feel I've practiced what I've "preached," except I'm not preaching and I'm not expecting anyone to behave on good information on this issue before they are familiar with the facts. My parents had two children for each parent, instead of one for each, but they were not aware of the issues at stake. Who can blame them? I had a gut knowing that when it came to children less was more and waiting was a virtue, but it's only in the last two years that I've researched the subject. 

Someone wrote me a nasty E-mail suggesting that profit motive was the problem, not sustainability. You're saying a similar thing. This argument is not sound, and the irony is that even if the assertion were correct, and sharing would allow more people, the assertion disqualifies itself. (If this veers off from your point, please forgive me, I am trying to respond to many comments at once.)

First, if it is primarily profit motive and greed that creates scarcity, then the solution would have to be education that seeks to expand people's sense of self -- spiritual education that uproots the shortsighted profit motive from people's awareness. But so long as profit motive is in power, education itself is a scarce resource. Depopulation would increase resources available for each person and lead to more education, which could then undermine profit motive and restructure societies so that they might efficiently nurture more people to their utmost capacities.

*People against profit motive should be for depopulation, even if to repopulate with a new social system in place.*

Second, even if the profit mongers suddenly decided to act philanthropically and resources were squarely divided, it would only increase the population even further as infant mortality decreased and people had even more surplus to invest in more babies and more growth. The excess surplus available to people would not miraculously be put in NASA or solar panels but instead go largely toward procreation -- where it has always gone -- which would then further compound the dire situation we face.

*After a century of poorly guided profit motive used to balloon the population, suddenly removing profit motive and the inequality it engendered would have catastrophic consequences.*

Third, if the profit mongers renounced profit motive AND if education and resources were suddenly and miraculously made available to near 7 billion people, then that would mean that ... the population would go down as people would focus more on personal and creative development and less on procreation. In other words, depopulation would result. Similarly, depopulation in the reverse direction would also result in more education, more shared resources, and hence less profit motive.

*Depopulation would foster the miracle of removing profit motive and increasing resource sharing.*

Never mind that the suggestion to educate profit motive out of existence -- though it is practically the only way to remove shortsightedness -- is like Aesop's mice suggesting to "bell the cat" so they would have warning of its approach. Great -- and useless -- idea. Just as the cat prevents the belling, so too do the profit kings prevent the education.

Finally, numerous governments facing population issues, including China and India, have precisely addressed the issue of population with resources, education, social safety, and health in mind. Limiting population was the practical solution. Undermining profit motive was not because all the profit motive in the world did not itself create a surplus of energy. The earth created the energy, and we used it to go from 1 billion to 7 billion people. That was caused by burning oil and investing surplus energy into procreation with profit in mind, but removing profit motive does not suddenly produce new oil fields.

But even if said removal immediately and fully diverted attention to renewable energies, it would not miraculously change the global oil infrastructure. And even if the oil burning infrastructure suddenly vanished and was replaced by solar powered plants, it would be useless. We do not have the technology to pull tractors with solar panels. Without oil, which is a liquid energy that quickly releases its stored potential, agriculture must severely downsize, and that means less food, which means less people no matter how evenly you spread the wealth.

Now, if you're inventor and have a new and better battery up your sleeve, that's another matter.

And of course, the assertion is dead wrong because the assumption is false. Profit motive was one of many driving forces behind expansion. It is not a driving force preventing sustainability of the expansion created by profit motive applied to oil resources, though when profit motive is misguided it can exacerbate and amplify clearly unsustainable systems. In other words, no amount of kumbaya is going to make 7 billion lives sustainable. In fact, profit motive, when rightly guided with long-term solutions in mind, is a source of inspiration for new ideas. Indeed, it is not profitable for any of us to continue on this fast-track to self-destruction through compound procreation. I hope that is motivating. 

by Sankara Saranam (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 28 comments) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 2:33:10 PM

  (0+)

See: P. Alexandria's comment at 8:38:51 AM

That's the Catholic version, but same rigidity.
God is within us all, if he really exists.
He also helps those who help themselves, and in this case it's the Human Race that needs to get beyond all the superficial divisions, whether it be religion, sex, race, nationality, or whatever! if we are to survive as a species..or even as Life on Earth!

by Bia Winter (6 articles, 2 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 760 comments [119 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 5:46:15 PM

  (0+)

Sorry, but you missed me! I got in late here, but it seems most of you ladies just went ballistic here without really reading this article.
Yes, there IS the natural knee-jerk reaction to the idea of sterilizing women, but the author said VOLUNTARY, with Incentives.

No incentives for the men, because, well, we know already what THEIR incentives are.

by Bia Winter (6 articles, 2 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 760 comments [119 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008 at 6:20:15 PM

  (0+)

we really did scrap this one out, didn't we?  lol

well, it got me doing research; I might write my own piece on it.

by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 30, 2008 at 1:03:11 AM

  (0+)

...the theory of HIV=AIDS, and the toxic "antiretroviral" drugs which (according to our glorious NIH) keep "HIV-positive" people from contracting AIDS but which, in fact, actually induce AIDS.  What better way to kill off lots of poor people or "moral degenerates" than by making them believe they're being HELPED.  Please see www.aliveandwell.org.  Not to mention our gov.'s insistance on keeping illegal recreational drugs illegal (to the vast profit of certain individuals, but conferring nasty deaths of lots of mostly poor people). 

by Jill Herendeen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 213 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 30, 2008 at 9:22:01 PM

  (0+)

Sankara you strike me as just another acolyte of the Right Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus. He was part of the English nobility and a founder of the East India Company College of Economics which later became the London scool of Economics.

Like him, I think you should have at noble title too. For you, how about the "Count of Beans?"

by Bucky the Commoner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 62 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 30, 2008 at 4:09:43 PM

  (0+)