How to increase populations?

[Crvena zvezda]

Sorry if this has already been posted as a thread.

My strategy for increasing populations are the following:
- Large subsidies to people who have children.
- Any couple with three kids, the government will finance the building of their home.
- Embedding in the constitution that life begins at the point of conception and that abortions are illegal.
- Banning all birth control and contraceptives.
- Creating two categories of citizenship. Subject of the state and citizen, to become citizen a female needs to have given birth to three children or a man needs to have fulfilled his military service.
- imposing a bachelor tax.
- using the same forms of incentives used by china in it's one child policy, just the reverse. more incentives for more children.
- restricting the travel of pregnant women abroad - to prevent them getting an abortion abroad.
- passing a law giving armed forces the right to go beyong international waters in order to stop the Abortion Ship from doing it's work (including blowing it up).
- when people go for a check up the doctor should also do tests to see if they are using contraceptives, other methods of birth control and if they have had an abortion.
- equate abortion with murder.

[Susi]

*yawns*

The only problem is that the world will suffer from overpopulation, not underpopulation. Sure, this is good for European countries. But not so much for the rest of the world.

- Large subsidies to people who have children.

Should be for more than a certain amount of children.

- Any couple with three kids, the government will finance the building of their home.

You sure about that? It could get costly... what about subsidizing rather than financing the whole thing?

- Embedding in the constitution that life begins at the point of conception and that abortions are illegal.

So what does this mean for birth control, morning after bills, condoms, et cetera? People do have sex for things other than to have children, whether you like it or not, and the science is there to stop them from even having a point of conception. (What exactly do you mean by this "Point of conception?)

Abortions should not be totally illegal. If a woman is raped, then she should be allowed to have one in the case of having a child.

- Banning all birth control and contraceptives.

Ah and it becomes clear.

Bad idea. Totally. You will have rampant sexually transmitted diseases. And way too many children.

Quality, my friend, not quantity, in this case. Do you want every lunatic and moron having a child?

- Creating two categories of citizenship. Subject of the state and citizen, to become citizen a female needs to have given birth to three children or a man needs to have fulfilled his military service.

Well isn't that great for the woman. What if she cannot physically have any children? What if she can't afford to have three children?

- imposing a bachelor tax.

From what age?

- using the same forms of incentives used by china in it's one child policy, just the reverse. more incentives for more children.

You already said this one.

- restricting the travel of pregnant women abroad - to prevent them getting an abortion abroad.

Starting to go a little too far. Excuse me, but if I am pregnant, I want to go on a little vacation to get away from the stresses of everyday life. Damned men and their unsympatheticness. They have no idea what it is like to be a woman, that is the problem.

Though I agree regarding the abortions thing.

- passing a law giving armed forces the right to go beyong international waters in order to stop the Abortion Ship from doing it's work (including blowing it up).

Abortion ship?!

- when people go for a check up the doctor should also do tests to see if they are using contraceptives, other methods of birth control and if they have had an abortion.

Kind of hard to see if they are using condoms, firstly. And with birth control-- they could just be pregnant, it is the same hormones. I don't see why you are so against birth control. I think it is effective in reducing the amount of abortions. If there is no "point of conception", there can be no ball of cells, ergo, no abortion.

- equate abortion with murder.

I'm neutral on this one. There would be special cases.

---

My feelings on these is that they regard women as being stupid w.. and promiscuous. You know, another thing, I don't want to be treated as a baby making machine.

I may be no feminist, but I know when I'm getting the short end of the stick.

[Crvena zvezda]

Originally Posted by Susi

The only problem is that the world will suffer from overpopulation, not underpopulation. Sure, this is good for European countries. But not so much for the rest of the world.

Overpopulation in many cases over exagerrated. The United States can support over a billion more people and Canada can support at least dozens of million more. In South America most populations are concentrated along the coast. Some regions of Africa and Asia can support more people, just not the desert regions. The only thing that is needed to decrease the effects of the rising population is better farming technology as farms are inefficient in almost all regions of the world. Australia can also support a lot more people.

Originally Posted by Susi

Should be for more than a certain amount of children.

True. It should be for three children or more since the rate of replacement is 2.1 children

Originally Posted by Susi

You sure about that? It could get costly... what about subsidizing rather than financing the whole thing?

I see your point. How about just giving them free land and subsidizing a part of the cost. I doubt people would want the government to finance their entire house since it would likely not be to their liking (government would want least amount of cost, hence it would be just basic housing and not in prime areas).

Originally Posted by Susi

So what does this mean for birth control, morning after bills, condoms, et cetera? People do have sex for things other than to have children, whether you like it or not, and the science is there to stop them from even having a point of conception. (What exactly do you mean by this "Point of conception?)

True. But when I talk about birth control I mean anything that is not naturally occuring and the pills, chemicals used in needled and patches all use synthetic chemicals. I have nothing against condoms since some researchers have said that they have existed since Roman times. If people want to have sex with out getting pregnant their are operations for that (mind you i believe they should be limited to people who've already had children) and their are certain plants/herbal remedies people can take that are naturally occuring (and I wouldn't ban them for they are synthetic) that can be used instead of some birth control methods (and none due what the morning after pill does).

Point of conception - the point of fertilization.

Originally Posted by Susi

Abortions should not be totally illegal. If a woman is raped, then she should be allowed to have one in the case of having a child.

I see the logic in that case and when the parent is physically or mentally unfit. But I am still against it, i don't see why the unborn child should be punished with death for something it did not do. I believe women who get raped and give birth should recieve larger incentives and subsidies because it is not usually their fault that they got pregnant.

Originally Posted by Susi

Bad idea. Totally. You will have rampant sexually transmitted diseases. And way too many children.

Not every lunatic should have children, there should be laws making it easier to take children away from unfit parents.

It could decrease std's because if the chance of getting pregnant is increased and abortions are illegal it means that people will be less promiscous and if they are less promiscous there will be fewer STD's.

In regards to quality, not quantity. Qualitt is not a trate that can be passed on but it is there surroundings. The great Maradona was not a quality person but he's childrren were. While pele (people say) was a quality person who had a large quantity of children and they all became horrible people.

Originally Posted by Susi

Well isn't that great for the woman. What if she cannot physically have any children? What if she can't afford to have three children?

Obviously some exceptions to the rule will exist. So long as they didn't do something purposefully to their body to prevent them from having children.

Originally Posted by Susi

From what age?

Possibly 25. But i'd prefer 30, my inspiration for the age of 30 is the fact that the Ancient Athenians had a law that under which any man who was not married by the age of 30 would lose his rights to citizenship.

It should be a bachelor tax from the age of 25 and loss of citizenship if they are unmarried by the age of 30.

Originally Posted by Susi

Starting to go a little too far. Excuse me, but if I am pregnant, I want to go on a little vacation to get away from the stresses of everyday life. Damned men and their unsympatheticness. They have no idea what it is like to be a woman, that is the problem.

Though I agree regarding the abortions thing.

It's about to a certain month. most countries have laws allowing abortions about to a certain date. so it would be certain countries at certain times.

Originally Posted by Susi

Abortion ship?!

Yes. It's a dutch ship that goes harbours of shore just beyond international waters and then brings on aboard pregnant women and gives them abortions. It does this in countries where abortions are illegal or restrictive. It's operated by the Dutch NGO Women on Waves. Women on Waves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Susi

Kind of hard to see if they are using condoms, firstly. And with birth control-- they could just be pregnant, it is the same hormones. I don't see why you are so against birth control. I think it is effective in reducing the amount of abortions. If there is no "point of conception", there can be no ball of cells, ergo, no abortion.

Banning condoms is just ludicrous. They've existed since the time of the romans. The only thing you could do to ban condoms is ban laytex and other petrochemical derivatives but it makes no sense since they could do what people allergice to laytex use.

If they're really that desperate to not get pregnnat they could use naturally occuring plants/herbal remedies. Since it;s actually possible to test if hormones are natural or are the by product of something else (i.e. birth control).

Again. i consider the point of conception to be the point the egg is fertilized.

[Susi]

Originally Posted by Crvena zvezda

Overpopulation in many cases over exagerrated. The United States can support over a billion more people and Canada can support at least dozens of million more. In South America most populations are concentrated along the coast. Some regions of Africa and Asia can support more people, just not the desert regions. The only thing that is needed to decrease the effects of the rising population is better farming technology as farms are inefficient in almost all regions of the world. Australia can also support a lot more people.

The entire Earth cannot support 6 billion + people.

Maybe with more efficient technologies, maybe. But without stopping fossil fuel usage, it is impossible. There are too many of us for the Earth to support.

True. It should be for three children or more since the rate of replacement is 2.1 children

Yes.

I see your point. How about just giving them free land and subsidizing a part of the cost. I doubt people would want the government to finance their entire house since it would likely not be to their liking (government would want least amount of cost, hence it would be just basic housing and not in prime areas).

Yes, this is a good plan.

True. But when I talk about birth control I mean anything that is not naturally occuring and the pills, chemicals used in needled and patches all use synthetic chemicals.

They use hormones from the human body.

I have nothing against condoms since some researchers have said that they have existed since Roman times. If people want to have sex with out getting pregnant their are operations for that (mind you i believe they should be limited to people who've already had children) and their are certain plants/herbal remedies people can take that are naturally occuring (and I wouldn't ban them for they are synthetic) that can be used instead of some birth control methods (and none due what the morning after pill does).

Well you did say "contraceptives" which includes condoms.

I've never heard of these plants/herbal methods... a link to a reputable source, perhaps?

Point of conception - the point of fertilization.

This is what I figured.

I see the logic in that case and when the parent is physically or mentally unfit. But I am still against it, i don't see why the unborn child should be punished with death for something it did not do. I believe women who get raped and give birth should recieve larger incentives and subsidies because it is not usually their fault that they got pregnant.

Um, excuse me, but do you know how psychologically damaging it is for a woman to be raped? And then forced to have her rapist's child? She's probably commit suicide!

Not every lunatic should have children, there should be laws making it easier to take children away from unfit parents.

Most of the time, unfit parents make unfit children.

It could decrease std's because if the chance of getting pregnant is increased and abortions are illegal it means that people will be less promiscous and if they are less promiscous there will be fewer STD's.

Perhaps, but you cannot expect people to be less promiscuous.

In regards to quality, not quantity. Qualitt is not a trate that can be passed on but it is there surroundings. The great Maradona was not a quality person but he's childrren were. While pele (people say) was a quality person who had a large quantity of children and they all became horrible people.

It depends.

Obviously some exceptions to the rule will exist. So long as they didn't do something purposefully to their body to prevent them from having children.

I see.

Possibly 25. But i'd prefer 30, my inspiration for the age of 30 is the fact that the Ancient Athenians had a law that under which any man who was not married by the age of 30 would lose his rights to citizenship.

Basing laws for modern times entirely off of Classical society isn't a wise plan of action.

But I guess this is an okay law..

It should be a bachelor tax from the age of 25 and loss of citizenship if they are unmarried by the age of 30.

Tax increases maybe? If he gets married after 30, does he get citizenship back?

It's about to a certain month. most countries have laws allowing abortions about to a certain date. so it would be certain countries at certain times.

I know how abortions work. I was taught it in school as an option for when/if I become pregnant. :\

Yes. It's a dutch ship that goes harbours of shore just beyond international waters and then brings on aboard pregnant women and gives them abortions. It does this in countries where abortions are illegal or restrictive. It's operated by the Dutch NGO Women on Waves. Women on Waves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ugh! How stupid! And how unhygenic!

Banning condoms is just ludicrous. They've existed since the time of the romans. The only thing you could do to ban condoms is ban laytex and other petrochemical derivatives but it makes no sense since they could do what people allergice to laytex use.

Which is vinyl. My friend, he is allergic to latex, and he has to buy expensive vinyl condoms (I don't remember why he was telling me this). As I recall, vinyl is a petrochemical derivative also.

If they're really that desperate to not get pregnnat they could use naturally occuring plants/herbal remedies. Since it;s actually possible to test if hormones are natural or are the by product of something else (i.e. birth control).

What are your plants/herbal remedies? Why use these when there is a method that is proven to be effective? It's like taking one step backwards.

Again. i consider the point of conception to be the point the egg is fertilized.

With birth control like the patches, the pills, and the needles, I will restate again...

THERE IS NO POINT OF CONCEPTION.

[Crvena zvezda]

Originally Posted by Susi

The entire Earth cannot support 6 billion + people.

Maybe with more efficient technologies, maybe. But without stopping fossil fuel usage, it is impossible. There are too many of us for the Earth to support.

True.

Originally Posted by Susi

They use hormones from the human body.

Some use hormones from the human body, but most are synthetic.

[quote=Susi]I've never heard of these plants/herbal methods... a link to a reputable source, perhaps?[quote]
I read in a sicience magazine called Discover. A credible source. I've also read about it before and in biologywe also learned about this. There's probably info on reliable sites on the internet.

Originally Posted by Susi

Um, excuse me, but do you know how psychologically damaging it is for a woman to be raped? And then forced to have her rapist's child? She's probably commit suicide!

I do not know. Ok, may be it is. But I'm still against abortions no matter what, but I am able to tolerate abortion in such a case.

Originally Posted by Susi

Most of the time, unfit parents make unfit children.

Because the law makes it virtually impossible to take their children away from them.

Originally Posted by Susi

Basing laws for modern times entirely off of Classical society isn't a wise plan of action.

But I guess this is an okay law..

May be not, but in this case I believe it is. Good aspects of classical society should be brought buck especially the concept of meritocracy.

Originally Posted by Susi

Tax increases maybe? If he gets married after 30, does he get citizenship back?

That is something society should decide. Most societies would say yes on giving back citizen ship

Originally Posted by Susi

Which is vinyl. My friend, he is allergic to latex, and he has to buy expensive vinyl condoms (I don't remember why he was telling me this). As I recall, vinyl is a petrochemical derivative also.

There are other substances. After all the condom has been around since the time of the Romans. In the middle ages they used goat skin.

Originally Posted by Susi

It's like taking one step backwards.

It is. But my view of allowing the naturally occuring plants over synthetic substances and man-made substances for medicine is due to the fact that I disttrust all synthetic pharmaceuticals since all ma-made medicines have side-effects whether emotional or physical or medical and most companies lie about the results.

[Susi]

Originally Posted by Crvena zvezda

True. Some use hormones from the human body, but most are synthetic.

But they need to copy the hormones in the synthetic.. it's like a photocopy..

I read in a sicience magazine called Discover. A credible source. I've also read about it before and in biologywe also learned about this. There's probably info on reliable sites on the internet.

Discover is made by Disney. Hardly an incredibly credible source (haha, alliteration).

Then find me the sites, I don't know what they are called, I was never taught them.

I do not know. Ok, may be it is. But I'm still against abortions no matter what, but I am able to tolerate abortion in such a case.

Good. We're settled on this matter.

Because the law makes it virtually impossible to take their children away from them.

No, they usually give them up or have them taken.

May be not, but in this case I believe it is. Good aspects of classical society should be brought buck especially the concept of meritocracy.

Not in all cases.

I guess meritocracy is a good idea, but I think it wouldn't work very well in practice.

That is something society should decide. Most societies would say yes on giving back citizen ship

And so would I. Because I am going to rule the world one day.

There are other substances. After all the condom has been around since the time of the Romans. In the middle ages they used goat skin.

But you said you disliked the synthetics I don't see how it is any different.

Oh, goat skin. How very practical and hygienic. Not.

It is. But my view of allowing the naturally occuring plants over synthetic substances and man-made substances for medicine is due to the fact that I disttrust all synthetic pharmaceuticals since all ma-made medicines have side-effects whether emotional or physical or medical and most companies lie about the results.

Well if they are the same effects of the drug/plant, then wouldn't they have the same side effects?

And you didn't comment on my point of conception point at the end.

[Susi]

And another thing...

Think of all this from a woman's perspective. I know it is hard. It's hard for me to think of things from a man's perspective, but I manage well enough.

[Crvena zvezda]

Originally Posted by Susi

But they need to copy the hormones in the synthetic.. it's like a photocopy..

Not always. In some cases it involves synthetic chemicals that stimulate hormone production.

Originally Posted by Susi

Discover is made by Disney. Hardly an incredibly credible source (haha, alliteration).

Then find me the sites, I don't know what they are called, I was never taught them.

Not aware of that fact. But when I do I will place the sites.

Originally Posted by Susi

No, they usually give them up or have them taken.

From what I've read itt's hard to have a chold taken away from a parent. Since you live in the west you obviously have more knowledge of the court system their then I do.

Originally Posted by Susi

Well if they are the same effects of the drug/plant, then wouldn't they have the same side effects?

And you didn't comment on my point of conception point at the end.

Naturally occuring medicines tend not to have side effects and if they do the side-effect is worse. It's kind of like tobacco, pure tobacco plants are bad but yet the stuff processed in factories is worse for it contains over 15,000 chemicals including fermaldahide.

I didn't comment since their was no point. My view is and always shall be that any thing man made that prevents conception (point of fertilization) should be illegal. My view will never change.

Actually that's wrong. My view might change but only when Orthodox nations stop facing the threat of a muslim invasion by Turks, Albanians, once are infideals are de-Turkified, once constantinople is liberated from the Turkish yoker, and other Muslim threats.

[Susi]

Originally Posted by Crvena zvezda

Not always. In some cases it involves synthetic chemicals that stimulate hormone production.

Oki.

Not aware of that fact. But when I do I will place the sites.

Thank you.

From what I've read itt's hard to have a chold taken away from a parent. Since you live in the west you obviously have more knowledge of the court system their then I do.

It isn't where I live, it's because my mother is a social worker-- she doesn't take children away anymore, but she used to when my parents lived in England. I think there has to be sufficient evidence but usually if the child is being abused, neglected, et cetera, and someone reports it, there will be an investigation.

Naturally occuring medicines tend not to have side effects and if they do the side-effect is worse. It's kind of like tobacco, pure tobacco plants are bad but yet the stuff processed in factories is worse for it contains over 15,000 chemicals including fermaldahide.

What about disinfectant? Will you outlaw this too?

Tobacco is bad for you no matter how it comes.

I didn't comment since their was no point. My view is and always shall be that any thing man made that prevents conception (point of fertilization) should be illegal. My view will never change.

Then your support of condoms is hypocritical. They prevent conception and they are manmade.

Actually that's wrong. My view might change but only when Orthodox nations stop facing the threat of a muslim invasion by Turks, Albanians, once are infideals are de-Turkified, once constantinople is liberated from the Turkish yoker, and other Muslim threats.

View on what, exactly?

[Crvena zvezda]

Originally Posted by Susi

It isn't where I live, it's because my mother is a social worker-- she doesn't take children away anymore, but she used to when my parents lived in England. I think there has to be sufficient evidence but usually if the child is being abused, neglected, et cetera, and someone reports it, there will be an investigation.

My information on the west and taking children away from parents is lacking. I've also heard it's incredibly easy to prove a parent is neglecting their kid. i mean if a parent spanks their kid they get in trouble. here in Serbia I remember when my brother was acting up my dad hit him told him to take a branch of the tree and my dad spanked him a couple of times with it. in the west that would be considered child abuse but it's a very effective way of getting children to act decently.

Originally Posted by Susi

Tobacco is bad for you no matter how it comes.

Not true. My great-grandfather, my great-great-grandgather and my great-grate-great grandfather smoked like crazy and they all lived to be almost 100 years old. While my great-uncle he smoked factory processed cigars and he died young.

Originally Posted by Susi

Then your support of condoms is hypocritical. They prevent conception and they are manmade.

Condoms may prevent contraception but they break rather easily. Second, even if a condom was not synthetic man would find something to use for a condom. i remember when i took sex-ed the teacher mentioned how people have used large leaves before.

Originally Posted by Susi

View on what, exactly?

My view on banning conctraceptives and birth control. It's simple they're detrimental to Europe since Europe's biggest enemies (Muslims) are experiencing a population explosion.