Tags for This Article:

People (1239)  God (576)  Immigration (527)  Future (524)  Population (244)  Abortion (195)  Population Growth (11) 

Populum Tag Cloud
       Control Panel
Fine tune your search to access content
Articles
Diaries Products
All
All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs
From:
Month  Day   Year

To:
Month  Day   Year
Alphabet
Popularity
Count ON
Count OFF
This Level
Sub-levels

 

 

 

Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ;
Add to My Group
October 3, 2007 at 18:59:10

POPULATION TAKINGS - The Costs Of Belief And Per-Capita Ruin

by Kent Welton     Page 1 of 2 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com

Tell A Friend

Population Takings - The Costs of Belief And Per-Capita Ruin -

"The Pope is continually interfering. He will not allow birth control, it is a sin – sin against God. And what kind of God is this, who cant see that the earth is overburdened with population?... If some day this whole earth dies out of this explosion of population, then these people will be responsible for it."

Osho

    Every birth beyond replacement represents a per-capita "taking" of a portion of everyone else’s per-capita earthly estate – i.e the per-person amount of space, land, water, and resources.

    The constant diminution in per-capita estate resulting from reproduction beyond replacement means this so-called "growth" represents no less than a "taking" of per-capita estate from all others – in effect, an uncompensated theft and clear loss in the qualities, and security, of life.

    Takings law, as we know it today,derives from the fifth amendment to our Constitution which provides that "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." But this relates to eminent domain by the state in its often necessary acquisition of private property – a process not greatly affecting societal and natural systems, if at all.

    On the other hand, what about takings of the commons and our common, per-capita, wealth? The on-going rise in population today means such takings not only affect private property but all the commons, our commonwealth, as well as our economic and environmental security.

    In this case it is, in effect, the taking of public property for private use that population growth entails, and for which we currently have no recompense, penalty, or even economic theory. Capital’s ludicrous and dangerous growth-to-ruin is thus rewarded and, in the process, Balance itself is both penalized and prevented.

    As a result, the Better Estate and better social and environmental condition is continually lost and degraded. What kind of "economics" is this? What kind of morality? What kind of justice?

    As with any uncompensated taking it is no less a form of taxation, and not only without representation but also without any recompense to those harmed and affected.

    The idiocy of such Growthism, as I call it, created by religious dogma and capitalist nonsense, is clearly ruining our world. Are all of us continually harmed and shrunk supposed to simply sit still for this endless ruination of our children’s world?

    Any real morality today, both public and private, would be emphasizing not a constant per-capita estate reducing "growth," but rather maintaining a salutary and sane Balance.

    Real morality, compassion, and responsibility in our current world is then about passing on a balanced population, a balanced environment and balanced budgets to our children. Anything less is simply a crime upon our progeny and future generations.

    Why, in the world as we now find it, do these population takings remain an un-discouraged, much less unpunished and untaxed crime?

    In today’s fragile world, those breaking the balance should be made to pay for their trangressions upon all others per-capita estates. Without penalty for population-induced takings, we cannot hope to secure a salutary balance in the world nor pass on a world to our children and future generations in the condition we inherited.

    In today’s world we should be taxing the third child and sanctioning those countries and "religious" organizations whose dogma amounts to an ever-increasing tax upon the commons and all nonbelievers.

    Those countries sending their poor legions to First World nations should pay a price, and surely not be encouraged to birth more souls and send ever more people elsewhere in order to gain yet more remittances from their ever-emerging overpopulation and encouragement of emigration. In effect, we should be taxing Mexico and the Pope and Ayatollahs of the world who are primarily responsible for the onslaught of per-capita takings, and the incredible threat to future generations which overpopulation now represents.

 1  |  2

 

TheCenterForBalance.org

Author, Exec. Dir. The Center For Balance. Websites: PanditPress.com, OligarchyUSA.com, PublicCentralBank.com, EditorFreedom.com, FascismUSA.COM & more

Contact Author

Contact Editor

View Other Articles by Author

 

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

NETSCAPE      DIGG THIS      NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Spurl      Tag!RawSugar      Shadows Tag!      Blink List     (More...)
Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
1 comments

Graduated Class of 1965 in Southern California, when I feel there was a large split in society between those for the status quo and those for a better world. (Plus 5 years university units with no degree.)  Activism and politics entered my life just before Bush I.  I am a single mother (never married) of 2 adult daughters (7 years age difference,) one a brittle diabetic since age 4 requiring a life altering amount of hospitalizations.  I presently live in the L...

to see more of bio, click on member name

ljsGraduated Class of 1965 in Southern California, when I feel there was a large split in society between those for the status quo and those for a better world. (Plus 5 years university units with no degree.)  Activism and politics entered my life just before Bush I.  I am a single mother (never married) of 2 adult daughters (7 years age difference,) one a brittle diabetic since age 4 requiring a life altering amount of hospitalizations.  I presently live in the L...

to see more of bio, click on member name

One child per person maximum socially acceptable

I have been worried about this population explosion and its concurrent problems since the 70s when I first took a class in World Hunger at Cal Poly SLO, CA. 

Yet, to this day women who have liters of offspring perpetuating their own DNA are praised like it was an amazing success story.  It is supreme selfishness by the parents even at the expense of all those children they pop out. 

The attitude of men needs to change as well.  The reality is that men are on the whole not responsible for the dissemination of their seeds.  It is still allowed to be an admirable trait to be a young man who "gets around" and has lots of lovers - but oh yes he should use a condom.  Reality is that men don't use those condoms and it is all there is for men.  Men are for the most part the researchers in the field that keeps coming up with more birth control for women - the ones with the delicate systems. 

World hunger is a product of world population and world population is a product of those individual choices made one on one between men and women.  The attitudes of society towards men who do not use condoms and selfishly spread their seeds around and towards women who have the selfishness to pop out a bunch of their own personal genetic offspring simply need to change.  These need to be traits that are examples of supreme selfishness and slaps in the face of the rest of society when a person goes over one self replication. 

You simply cannot outlaw the number of children a woman can bear but social attitudes can go a long way.  Also, those tax credits for children need to cease.  That is all we need is something encouraging people to have children. 

All birth control has a failure rate, so as I stated, it cannot be something that is against the law or nightmare scenarios ensure. 

Also, conception ends up always being on the shoulders of the woman and the men slide off scott free from their participation in this overpopulation.  The WWII generation US men were still allowed to get away with blaming a pregnancy on a woman like maybe they took no part in that production. 

Laws that state a pregnancy is a gift to a woman but not to a man still exist in many states in the US.  This disparity in the legal system must change. 

The very nature of women is to be nurturing and submissive to men.  This is part of the whole sexual set up of nature.  For example, oxytocin makes the women bond to the man but the man has no such bonding hormones that he gets from sex.  Nature has stacked it against women. 

In the Middle East, a man and a woman who have sex outside the sociatal parameters have it set up that the woman gets stoned to death and the man gets a tut-tut and off he goes to do it again.  Womens clit can be removed so she does not enjoy sex and she has the reponsibility to not wear enticing clothing because men cannot supposedly control themselves.  It couldn't possibly be their sexual enjoyment that might need reigning in.   Lets get real here.  Nice try guys.  You got away with it for way too long.  Man up and take the responsibility for your own bodies men.  Quit blaming it all on women.  They appear enticing you and that is not your fault.  You would never entice a woman right? It could never be just a one-sided interest right?  They get pregnant and that is not your fault.  Something wrong with this plan - oh yeah, it is over populating the planet and you get off scott free while the women carry the burden.  This simply must change.  Mens bodies are far less fragile to alter physically so that they will not produce offspring, yet it is womens bodies that all the science goes after.  Men still just have condoms and yet most the researchers in the field are men.  Something wrong with this picture.

Over population is our biggest ultimate problem on this planet.  Men must be held responsible.  Society and the law have accept their responsibility in perpetuating this problem of producing more than just yourself.  More than one child per person and then it becomes a socially unacceptable act.

by ljs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 43 comments) on Friday, October 5, 2007 at 2:02:49 AM
 

 

1 comments

 

Tell A Friend

 


Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008