Well, maybe not old Slippery Dick HIMSELF...

Twenty-five years and 57 million fewer Americans and one million fewer Oregonians ago, a Nixon commission on population noted:

There would be no benefits to a growing population, that the health of our economy does not depend upon it, that the life of the average citizen is not enhanced by it, that democratic representation is diluted by it and that most of our serious problems would be easier to solve if we stopped growing.

JOJ

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ecoweb.net), March 09, 2001

Answers

Every naturalized resident of the U.S. agrees we should close the door behind them!

-- woodsbilly (coleenl@penn.com), March 10, 2001.

Repeatedly in population-related discussions I've heard someone claim that the US population, like those of Europe and Japan, would be stable or even decreasing without continued immigration. I have yet to see a reputable source for that statement. If anyone knows, I'd appreciate it if you would please post it here.

-- Cash (cash@andcarry.com), March 10, 2001.

President Nixon did the right thing (concerning the problem). HE DIED. If everyone who is so concerned about the problem would do likewise, the problem (if there even is a problem) would vanish...

-- Ed Copp (OH) (edcopp@yahoo.com), March 10, 2001.

Woodsbilly, just who do you think should decide what level of population we should have?

Cash, I've heard the same statistics, and I don't know a reputable source. Perhaps the latest census data (if they are reputable)

Ed, a serious question for you: are you a total asshole, or just a mindless fool?

JOJ

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ecoweb.net), March 10, 2001.

Joe... deserved or not that was uncalled for

-- Dave (Ak) (david.harrison2@keflavik.af.mil), March 11, 2001.

JOE>

I AM NO MORE OF A MINDLESS FOOL OR AN ASSHOLE THAN YOU ARE.

Have a nice day................

-- Ed Copp (OH) (edcopp@yahoo.com), March 11, 2001.

Come on guys - fight nice!

-- Michael W. Smith in North-West Pennsylvania (kirklbb@penn.com), March 11, 2001.

I, for one , would like to thank Nixon for his contribution towards resolving this problem.

-- jz (oz49us@yahoo.com), March 11, 2001.

Well - first off - Nixon didn't do anything out of the ordinary, cept get caught.

I had the tubes tied - there are more than enough kids to go around. Adoptions.... well, its been stated that there is a shortage of children to adopt.... Not true... just a shortage of 'perfect' children. (Sorry... venting about a letter in the local paper)

I don't agree there should be restrictions placed on bearing children, nor to I think abortion should be used as birth control (I am pro-choice, though). I DO think that everyone (world over) should have access to the best methods of birth control possible. Breeding like rabbits would be fine - if we were rabbits.

-- Sue Diederich (willow666@rocketmail.com), March 11, 2001.

Sue, I agree that if we were rabbits it would be okay to "breed like rabbits" because the number of predators that keep rabbits in check are numerous. The problem with human populations, as I see it, is that we've managed to outwit many previous checks -most notably disease. In all but the poorest countries most people can expect to live to middle age at the very least, and can also expect most or all of their children to survive to adulthood.

Of course, if we were to populate the earth the way bacteria populate certain laboratory cultures we could expect the same sort of natural population decline from the lack of life-sustaining elements. But why in the world would anyone want our species to come to that? Controlling our own population is far easier in the long run than having to compete in a dog-eat-dog world for the few remaining resources available.

In my opinion, competing amongst each other for life itself would surely bring out the worst in people, whereas competing in sports and arts and academics brings out the best, and isn't that a greater tribute to humanity? Well, it seems only logical to me, but then everything I think seems that way, of course -it sure is interesting reading all the widely divergent opinions!

-- Leslie A. (lesliea@home.com), March 12, 2001.

Well Sue, it kind of concerns me when someone says that someone like tricky dick did nothing out of the ordinary. Now I'm certainly not sticking up for politicians, but considering Nixons bold faced ongoing thread of lies, it's quite clear he would have been more at home in a dictatorship. When a leader who is obviously unstable and willing to do whatever it takes to win, to hell with the law, and that is ordinary. Whoa!! Like I said ,I am obliged to his contribution to reducing the population by ceasing to breathe.

-- jz (oz49us@yahoo.com), March 12, 2001.

We live thick and are in each other's way, and stumble over one another, and I think that we thus lose some respect for one another. -Henry David Thoreau

-- debra in ks (solid-dkn@msn.com), March 12, 2001.

Do you think overpopulation might have something to do with our kids in school shooting everthing in site? Do you think overpopulation might have something to do with all the road rage idiots out there? We are over crouded, and tensions rise when others venture to close to our space. There are no benifits to a growing population! In fact it just adds to the problems that we have.

-- hillbillly (internethillbilly@hotmail.com), March 12, 2001.

Yep, Hillbilly, I think your on da right track. Lets all go country!

-- woodsbilly (coleenl@penn.com), March 12, 2001.

YIKES! This topic really gets me irritated. First of all let me say that I do not have a family of 6 children so I am not trying to defend myself.

Second, please refrain from calling me names or presuming I am an uneducated idiot if I disagree with you.

The real issue here is how we live -not how many children we have. Let me give an illustration please

Family #1 The Mr. Yuppie Consumer and his wife Spendy

The Consumers live in a $300,000 dollar suburban mansion. They have only 1 teenage child. Yuppie and his wife Spendy both work. Between the 2 of them they make $150,000 dollars a year. They have 3 cars that are almost always on the road going to and from work, to sporting events, to the mall etc.

Spendy works full time so she must buy mostly convenience foods to feed her family. In her lifetime she has contributed to tons of landfill waste in the form of convenience food packaging, designer work clothes, pantyhose waste, plastic diapers, the latest CD's, video's, this gadget, that gadgetetc etc etc... Due to lack of time the Consumers find themselves often eating dinner out at restaurants that are setting new precedents for rainforest destruction. Most of the items this family consumes each day are not biodegradable. Spendy is always shopping for the latest item she sees on TV and is alway running her vehicle to and fro. And of course that vehicle needs replaced every 3 years you know! Let's not forget the chemical pollution that Spendy is personally responsible for - all that makeup, perfume, hair dye, perm solution, cleaning fluids etc that Spendy goes through in a lifetime!

Spendy's husband Yuppie likes his yard to look perfect. He has all the right tools. He sprays gallons of toxic chemicals on his lawn every year - not to mention fertilizers and herbicides. Last year Yuppie bought a small yaght for his lovely family. Of course they only have time to use it once or twice in the summer but it was all worth it for the sheer joy of seeing his family smile.And they needed something to occupy their time when they are at the summer house.

The Consumers young son owns 350 CD's of the latest music. He spends ever waking hour trying to figure out how he can best entertain himself. He drives his new car here and there in an ever restless attempt at seeing the most friends in the least amount of time. Of course, he spends a good deal of time at the mall replacing his wardrobe of clothes that are outdated by a whole 3 months! And he must work a few hours a week so he can buy more CD's and see more friends.

Family #2

The Joe and Sue Thrifty have 6 children. They care about the environment and try to live sustainably. They purchase most of their clothing at thrift stores and garage sales. They grow a large garden and raise alot of their own foods. They sacrifice so they can buy organic food. Sue stays home and cooks home cooked meals, she uses cloth diapers and wipes. She makes her own soap products. They spend their evening enjoying the family and not darting all over time shopping for this and that. THey try to limit purchases to those that are truly necessary and useful. THey own one family vehicle. Last year Sue was able to grow alot of the families food herself and did not have to rely on food being transported long distances to her grocery store. She tries to buy things locally. She composts her kitchen waste and hangs her cloths to dry on the line. Joe does not see a need to spray his yard with chemicals. He thinks dandilions are beautiful. Joe has had the same station wagon for 10 years now. He kind of enjoys working on it.

The Thrifty children do not have many toys. They enjoy the simple pleasures in life like their parents. THey were taught that the good life requires hard work. THey enjoy working and spend a good deal of the day doing so. In their spare time they do not shut themselves in their custom decorated bedrooms - they spend time together -playing games and enjoying being a family.

The Thrifty's do not have a big fancy house. It is modestly decorated with second hand furniture. There are 3 children to each bedroom.

********** The point is that we must put more emphasis on living sustainably. I have a friend who is an environmental biologist. She told me that it is more important that we live sustainably then control the population.

I would be greatly concerned if this country began to legislate family size. I do not want to live in China folks. The world has gone on for centuries and the population will correct itself. This is a sad but natural truth - sometimes it takes war, famine and disease.

I am an environmentalist. But I am also a naturalist. Chemical birth control is not an option. At one time I did research on the teratogenic effects of oral contraception. My findings where horrifying folks. The evidence of carcinogenic, mutagenic, and terotogenic effects of these chemical drugs is in the medical literature. Go to your local medical library and see for yourself!

Populations have naturally corrected themselves for centuries. I certainly don't welcome famine, disease, etc. These things are not pleasant. I buried one of my own children 8 years ago -so I know how painful the realities of natural law can be.

Can we hope to restore and control a natural environment by unnatural means? Isn't that what modern farming is about? How about modern medicine?

The enemy is not our children folks. It is greed and selfishness. It is consumer mentality. Look in your own heart and you will find it there. Look in the mirror and you will see who is causing the problems mankind faces. I have looked and seen it in my life folks. Don't tell me it is not in yours.

I have thought long and hard about the environmental problems we all face. How many of us are willing to make the sacrifices necessary to live responsibly?

So, I don't care if you have 25 children if you teach them to be responsible people who live lives of service to others. What saddens me all the little yuppies we are creating who think the whole world exists to please them and meet their needs.

Oh, lest I be misunderstood. This was in no way intended to be a personal attack on any of you women who work. I understand that this is sometimes necessary.

Nuf Said!

-- Tiffani Cappello (cappello@alltel.net), March 14, 2001.

Well Tiff, how about if we thought this through just alittle bit more. Perhaps there is a third option maybe we could strive to live sustainably AND have fewer children. I don't think this choice like any other personal choice should be dictated to anyone else but choice number three works for me. I wholeheartedly agree that something will cure the population problem. Question is , why not make it our choice? Throwing up our hands and waiting for some calamity to cure the problem seems kind of irresponsible. Maybe that is why we were given a brain and the gift of reason so that we might find a bit more comfortable solution.

-- jz (oz49@yahoo.com), March 15, 2001.

This is my point. We should have that choice. If you choose to have only one child that is fine. But it is wrong to legislate the number of children one can have. It is wrong to force chemical birth control, sterilization, or abortion on women - which is what some population control supporters want. I know this is not the case of with all of you but I have read the literature and have seen what the agenda is with some of these people. I would hate to see a return to the days of old when you got burnt at the stake for not being baptized a Catholic. America has alot of problems but the great thing is that we can believe as we choose.

I was also trying to point out the hypocrisy of some of my fellow environmentalists. I have met one child advocates who think they are saving the world because they use birth control and recycle. Meanwhile the rest of their lifestyle is hypocritical.

Personally, I would be wrong for me to support with my dollars industries that kill and poison people. I do my best to avoid this although I am aware that it is difficult and maybe impossible in regards to some things. Pharmacuetical birth control causes birth defects, cancer, and genetic alteration. It is all there in the medical literature. See for yourself. Sterilization causes autoimmune problems etc... OM is the only real safe option for those who choose to limit family size and it is very effective if exercized with self control.

I agree starvation, famine etc is not a real welcome option. I just don't think we can remedy this situation with legislation that takes away peoples rights. THat is what gets me upset. I have a friend who lives in China. It is tough folks! These people have no freedoms. If they accidentally get pregnant they are hauled off to the abortionist then sterilized. If they live in a lenient district they are just fined more than they can ever afford to pay and will live in poverty the rest of their miserable lives. A friend of this man teaches English at a University. He dislikes his job. But the government will not give him permission to leave. This was the job they feel he is best suited for. HUH? Since when does someone else know what is best for me and my family?

Let's just imagine that our government decided that each family must have 5 children because our population was getting to small to make us a military force to be reckoned with.

The issue is that we should all be free to choose what we believe, how many children we have, what we say about the government, what we write and what we read.

I appreciate the fact that many of you out there care enough about others to try to help out with this society's problems. If everyone thought about others and cared for others this world would be better no doubt.

I am more concerned with people having children and raising them to be self-centered and uncaring, then I am with people having more than one child. If you choose to raise one child and help mold him into a man that will impact the world for good it is better than raising 7 children who will live lives of self interest and harm to others. Then again it is better to raise seven responsible citizens who will go out and help the sick, feed the poor, comfort the weary - then one self-centered brat who will shoot up his local high school because some girl dumps him.

I understand the concerns you folks have. But my point is that even if we half our population if we have a nation of Jeffrey Dahmers or Hitler's - we will still destroy ourselves.

I have a friend who has had 10 children. Every one of the older children is in Africa right now and the younger is preparing to go. What are they doing? Making a difference with there lives. Giving medical care and food to those who otherwise would not have it. Last year Rebecca suffered 6 bouts with Malaria and still refused to come home for the love of the people she serves. How can we criticize this family while we sit in our easy chairs by the computers in the latest fashions. Frankly folks! We could use a few more of these types of people in the world!

-- Tiffani Cappello (cappello@alltel.net), March 15, 2001.

Amen!

-- Lena(NC) (breezex4@go.com), March 15, 2001.

I have a few questions of my own...

Who is going to support the Social Security System when you are old enough to need it?

What genetic lines should we try to preserve, in our attempt to reduce the human population? Should we be concerned about the fact that those who are limiting family size, are the very ones who have the best genes for high IQ potential? Is this perhaps a factor we should concider in contemplating the problem of the current low school performance of american kids?

If "Mother Nature" is so wise, how in the world can we humans outsmart her? Even if we do reduce our population as humans, that fixes nothing in the realm of deseases among the wild animals. Wild animals are still horrifically cruel to each other. Answer; "Mother Nature" is not kind. We humans ARE at the top of the food chain, and are NATURALLY intended to remain there!

Human populations will be decimated not by human efforts, but by natural means. There are viruses right now that are poised to wipe out plenty of us.

We should rather be concerned about the need for producing ENOUGH humans to ensure survival of the coming plagues.

-- daffodyllady (daffodyllady@yahoo.com), March 15, 2001.

Tiffany, I would certainly rather see ten saints than one jeffrey dahmer. But that 's not the issue here.

If we don't want the u.s. to end up with the same problems China is having, we need to VOLUNTARILY limit family size. Otherwise, I assure you, the government will do it for us, sooner or later.

JOJ

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ecoweb.net), March 15, 2001.

Daffodyllady, I think thats where most of our problems come from. Trying to outsmart mother nature. Hey, she's been at this a loooong time and always wins in the end. The reasons animals and humans tend to go a bit whacky is they end up in some rather unnatural conditions. Whatever the cause, momma nature will straighten things out. For every action ,there is a reaction. I don't like the chinese method of controlling population, but if it were administered equally to all it would beat allowing an unlimited number of people in the lifeboat until it sinks. I agree Tiff, if someone were going to raise, say 20 Ghandis I would encourage that family to keep on keepin on. but I think that is such a rarity it is hardly worth considering and who judges who can and who can't?

-- jz (oz49us@yahoo.com), March 15, 2001.