5 comments

• 

  Clay

  12 months ago

  What do we do?
  
  Well, leaders in Italy should avoid "baby bonus" incentives as it is very unlikely these incentives actually promote the making of babies. I can't imagine any couple seriously considering economic incentive while making the decision to have a child. And if they would, I fear that the child wouldn't have the most spectacular of upbringings.
  
  I'm having a hard time viewing a "lowest-low" fertility rate in the grand scheme of things as a bad thing. The human population is still "exploding" and will curb off anywhere between 9 and 12 billion people. Even with a little over 6 billion we have ecological crises that have undoubtedly effected both society, and if left unmitigated, will prove to be the largest single threat to the well being of societies throughout the world. Global warming, loss of biodiversity and pollution are all examples of these ecological crises. The human population needs to be curbed as quickly as possible and we need to change the kind of affluence (the energy, resource intensive type) that we've become accustomed to in order to avoid (quite literally) global disaster.
  
  That being said, I view this low population growth as positive in that aspect. However, there has to be a point at which this population decline is truly detrimental to the economy of Italy. I think what Italians need is solid information about the predicted and current effects of this decline. After all, the only way this problem (if it indeed is, or becomes, a problem) will be fixed is through a cultural shift in attitudes.
  
  I don't understand the elite of the world wanting 80 percent of the population gone?... can you elaborate
  reply
• 

  Alicia O.

  12 months ago

  Thanks for thinking about the article! I was hoping more people would comment...
  
  Anyway, about "needing to curb human population:" How do we do that? How do you stop people from having kids? Do you see the problem with government sponsored initiatives that fiddle with fertility? Usually initiatives that try to cut fertility are ones such as Planned Parenthood, which tries to stop (usually) low-income individuals from having too many kids...
  
  There's really a lot to think about here. While humans are causing irreversible damage to this planet and we face food crises, it is difficult to suggest that we intentionally focus and having less children being born--something about it seems creepy to me. Also, if there are a lack of resources left on the planet, how is it that we Americans have 24 hr a day access to places like McDonalds, Wegmans, etc which are perpetually full of food and other resources (in the case of wegman's)--this while millions of people live on a dollar a day or less.
  
  About the elite comment: That was kind of a comment directed toward Andrew to post some links to information about evidence that depopulation is an ultimate goal of some organizations...look here for starters. It's a favorite site of Andrew's.
  http://www.infowars.net/articles/december2007/1...
  reply
• 

  Clay

  11 months ago

  The curbing of the human population needs to be intentional. But the choice isn't, "Do I have a child... yes or no." Planned parenthood is part of the solution, families (women in particular) need options, especially in developing countries. However, empowering women, promoting education, providing condoms, combating malaria and HIV all promote all stunt rapid growth and bring them down to more sustaining levels. These initiatives serve "win-win" situations improving health, sanity and at times even promoting democracy while lessening the environmental impact of an exploding population.
  reply
• 

  Andrew S.

  11 months ago

  Planned Parenthood is a eugenics op with admitted goals of reducing minority populations. Just look at their locations in the inner city. Please Google: "planned parenthood eugenics" to get an idea of this institution's long history and connections to Nazism (and the eugenics operations in America that Hitler got his ideas from). It might shock you!
  reply
• 

  Clayton

  11 months ago

  The version of "planned parenthood" is subjective. In lesser developed countries with little access to medicines or health care, planned parenthood means options. Instead of having anywhere from one to nine children, a women and her partner have options: condoms, possibly birth control, abortions. Planned Parenthood outposts in these countries sometimes also offer a hygienic and professional environment in which to have children. It's hard to find a negative slant for these particular Planned Parenthood stations in lesser developed countries. There is a bigger picture.
  
  Planned parenthood in more developed countries serves the same purpose. People in need of options, who may not have the income to have options by default. I'm willing to bet that promoting responsible parenting is at the heart of planned parenthood, not the thinning of the minority population at the hand of... well, I guess I'll let you finish that sentence? Who would want to thin the population of minorities and cover it up with planned parenthood Andrew?
  reply