Why Was I Ever Born-- Righting the Wrong — Global Issues

Cognizant of the Yemeni tragedy, President Biden - unlike Trump - took the first step by suspending the shipment of the killing machines. He could not allow himself to watch this human catastrophe to continue to take such a toll on the Yemeni people while degrading our morals and numbing our conscience.

It is time to warn Iran to end its support of the Houthis, as Tehran will never be permitted to establish a permanent foothold in the Arabian Peninsula. As an ally, Saudi Arabia should be encouraged to maintain the ceasefire and sue for a peace agreement.

The Houthis must remember that there will be no victors, only losers—losers, for they have already lost the country. The country they are fighting for is no longer there. They must now start at the beginning, and only together with the beleaguered government put an end to these unspeakable atrocities.

It is time to warn Iran to end its support of the Houthis, as Tehran will never be permitted to establish a permanent foothold in the Arabian Peninsula. As an ally, Saudi Arabia should be encouraged to maintain the ceasefire and sue for a peace agreement.

I bet President Biden learned how to draw a red line in the sand, and it will serve him as well as it has served others.

It is time to warn Iran to end its support of the Houthis,

Yet Biden, friend of Iran and the Houthis, removed their designation as a terrorist organization 

Biden doing everything he can for Iran, the people of Yemen will continue to pay the price...

You were born because of biology. Sorry about the circumstances. 

How many Muslims have we killed?

Not just us, but killed by their own. How many have died because of some bullshit stories that are 2000, or 1600 years old.

I have a hard time blaming the world for the poverty and suffering of people who have seven babies. "why, why was I ever born?" says the starving baby but I guarantee if his mother isn't pregnant yet she soon will be with number eight. Sure they live in a War Zone but it's not like it just started.

Do you consider the baby responsible?

Do you know the mother's possibilities for avoiding conception ?

Kinda presumptuous, for an easy-living American...

I keep saying overpopulation is a problem

Yeah, you're like a broken record, even where it's not on topic

Uncle Joe will take care of everything.

A little diplomacy will solve a lot of the world's problems.

Then, we can live happily ever after.

[removed]

There are some questions asked in the movie The Thin Red Line that pertain to Yemen and all war and suffering. 

Countless Yemeni children are dying from starvation and disease while the world shamelessly watches in silence, as if this was just a horror story from a different time and a distant place, where a country is ravaged by a senseless, unwinnable war while a whole generation perishes in front our eyes.

According to current scientific models, the world's environment is going to become far more hostile across the planet.  Whoever is in charge of the world needs to be addressing the underlying causes of wars while it may still be possible to make one iota of a difference.

We need problem solvers with solutions instead of the world continuing to fight senseless unwinnable wars. 

I know that the people who profit from war and empire building won't be supportive of any plan that promotes peace because their businesses life blood depends on millions of men, women and children shedding their life blood. The world needs to cease supporting the war barons by whatever means possible because wars should not be used as a means of solving our overpopulation problem.  

Why a generation is choosing to be child-free | Books | The Guardian

  If my baby were to be born today,   they would be 10 years old when a quarter of the world’s insects could be gone,   when 100 million children are expected to be suffering extreme food scarcity. My child would be 23 when 99% of coral reefs are set to experience severe bleaching. They would be 30 – my age now – when 200 million climate refugees will be roaming the world, when   half of all species on Earth   are predicted to be extinct in the wild. They would be 80 in 2100, when parts of Australia, Africa and the United States could be uninhabitable.

We are in the middle of a mass extinction, the first caused by a single species. There are 7.8 billion of us, on a planet that scientists estimate can support   1.5 billion humans   living as the average US citizen does today. And we know that the biggest contribution any individual living in affluent nations can make is   to not have children . According to one study, having one fewer child prevents 58.6 tonnes of carbon emissions every year; compare that with living car-free (2.4 tonnes), avoiding a transatlantic return flight (1.6), or eating a plant-based diet (0.82). Another study said it   was almost 20 times more important   than any other choice an environmentally minded individual could make. Such claims   have been questioned . After all, does a parent really bear the burden of their child’s emissions? Won’t our individual emissions fall as technologies and lifestyles change? Isn’t measuring our individual carbon footprint – a concept popularised by oil and gas multinational BP – giving a free pass to   the handful of corporate powers responsible for almost all carbon emissions ? The only thing that isn’t up for debate is that we all know that we are living in ways that can’t continue.

Excellent !

Thank you, Bob.

The US government should be funding bread, books and birth control instead of bullets.

I'd like to see a world wide One Child Policy, It wouldn't make enough difference for just affluent nations. I'm not a big supporter of foreign aid mostly because it never includes provisions for population control so the problems are never solved. I would definitely support paying our share of a UN  Free Birth Control Program paid for by the wealthy nations but provided to everyone on earth Free of charge, not just the poor nations. I'd also make countries that receive any type of foreign aid comply with Birth Control/Population Control rules or lose that aid. I also would not allow any Immigration from countries that do not institute population control, let them wallow in the results of their own destructive behavior. Over Population eclipses all our other problems combined and nothing is being done and very few people are even talking about it and certainly no politicians. Many people will call this an affront to personal freedom but we regulate and outlaw thousands of things that have much less impact on the future of this planet.

Many people will call this an affront to personal freedom but we regulate and outlaw thousands of things that have much less impact on the future of this planet.

Absolutely.

Limiting family size is already happening in industrialized nations where women are educated, have the freedom to work and make their own family planning choices.   This is why the US birthrate is under replacement rate and our government has been operating on an open border policy to bolster US population. 

In the past decade, Italy and Russia have tried paying women to have children. We may start seeing the same thing here labeled as  "tax credits"  or whatever will pass as something other than paying impoverished people to have more children than they can afford to feed, clothe and shelter. 

I have already seen one infomercial on the web by "liberals" downplaying the effects of overpopulation on the planet. I wish I had bookmarked it because I imagine it has been buried or deleted because the message wasn't well received when the headlines were screaming that we need to do something to feed the children who were underfed in the US currently.

Capitalism is about exploiting people and the planet for profit.  

We don't need to be manipulated into fighting more wars to empire build.  

We need to fight the war on poverty with education, not bullets.

Want to Stop Climate Change? Educate Girls and Give Them Birth Control | WIRED

But two lesser-known solutions also made this most practical of lists: the education of girls (number 6) and family planning (number 7). This is a stunning revelation, one that couldn’t be more pertinent, and yet, for the most part, discussions of mitigation and de-carbonization focus heavily on other matters, from the perceived perils and bona fide benefits of nuclear power, to just how quickly solar power is proliferating.

The link between the education of girls and a smaller carbon footprint isn’t as intuitively obvious as, say, phasing out fossil fuels. But dig a little deeper, and the evidence is overwhelming. It’s clear that getting more girls into school, and giving them a quality education, has a series of profound, cascading effects: reduced incidence of disease, higher life expectancies, more economic prosperity, fewer forced marriages, and fewer children. Better educational access and attainment not only equips women with the skills to deal with the antagonizing effects of climate change, but it gives them influence over how their communities militate against it.

Although the education of girls in a small number of countries is at, or approaching, parity with boys, for most of the planet, this remains distressingly elusive. Poverty, along with community traditions, tends to hold back girls as boys are prioritized.

Then there's family planning, something that’s indivisible from the education of girls. The planet is overpopulated, and the demands of its citizens greatly exceed the natural resources provided by our environment.

Contraception and prenatal care is denied to women across the world, from those in the United States, to communities in low-income nations. It’s either not available, not affordable, or social and/or religious motives ensure that it’s banned or heavily restricted. As a consequence, the world’s population will rise rapidly, consume ever more resources, and power its ambitions using fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide will continue to accumulate in the atmosphere.

The   education of girls   and   family planning   can be considered as a single issue involving the empowerment of women in communities across the world. Drawdown calculated that, by taking steps toward universal education and investing in family planning in developing nations, the world could nix   120 billion tons   of emissions by 2050. That’s roughly 10 years’ worth of China’s   annual emissions   as of 2014, and it’s all because the world's population won't rise quite so rapidly.

It's farcical that this isn’t forming a major part of the debate over climate change mitigation. It’s not entirely clear why this is the case, but I’d suspect that regressive societal attitudes, along with the tendency of commentators to focus on the battle between different energy sectors, play suppressive roles in this regard.

Project Drawdown isn't the only group that has recently tied population growth to climate change. A   study   published last summer also found that having just one fewer child is a far more effective way for individuals in the developed world to shrink their carbon footprint than, say, recycling or eating less meat. For women in wealthy countries, these decisions are often freely made, and fertility rates in those countries are already fairly low. In low-income countries, such individual agency—not to mention contraception—is frequently absent, and fertility rates   remain high .

This is why the US birthrate is under replacement rate and our government has been operating on an open border policy to bolster US population. 

In 2007 the US reached 300 mil in population now we're over 330 mil. That's a 10% increase in 13 years, that's not bolstering. Never in the history of the USA have we had this amount of immigration nether in shear numbers or as a percentage of our population. I find it foolish because many areas of our country already have water shortages plus it keeps wages low because of a glut of cheap labor and drives up housing costs. Imagine what it has taken to accommodate 10% more people in 13 years, 10% more housing, sewerage, electricity, hospitals, schools, and on and on 10% more of everything. It's no wonder the Government can't keep up with maintaining our aging infrastructure they're to busy building more to accommodate increasing population. If we had remained at 300 mil rents would be half what they are now and wages would have increased maybe 20% but it would feel like 60% because of the lower housing costs not to mention the savings on the Government spending side not having to build new infrastructure. Think of all the forests that would still be standing if we hadn't built 10% more housing, roads, shopping centers, and 10% more parking spaces to accommodate 10% more cars.

France's tax system gives advantages thar increase with the number of children. It has been proven, over the last half-century, that there's a direct relationship between those advantages and the birth rate.

It's logical. A young couple, just starting out, will feel safer with a bigger budget.

... and they don't speak English!

... and they're... Brown!!

If that's a problem for you maybe you should keep it to yourself.

The United States of America is the wealthiest nation in the history of the world.

But to hear some people, it can do NOTHING to improve... anything... in the world.

That makes no sense.

The United States of America is the wealthiest nation in the history of the world.

And the US population is the leading cause of climate change that is detrimental to all lives on the planet by living lifestyles that are not sustainable.

The world still has widespread poverty that is not being addressed except when it is useful for a headline to gain some political leverage.

The children being born every second is being born into a world of plundered resources and an ever increasing inhospitable climate.  Sadly, the world lacked leaders who were versed in science instead of business.

World Population Clock: 7.8 Billion People (2021) - Worldometer (worldometers.info)

and

Current Time - 2021 - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (thebulletin.org)

To:   Leaders and citizens of the world

Re:  This is your COVID wake-up call: It is 100 seconds to midnight

Date:   January 27, 2021

It is s-o-o-o pitiful....

The richest country should be doing the most to solve the problems... but its often doing the most to create them.

e US population is the leading cause of climate change that is detrimental to all lives on the planet by living lifestyles that are not sustainable.

Not even close to true, but anti-Americanism is more of a religion than it is concerned with reality. 

Not even close to true,

Really?  When did the scientists reverse their stance on US consumption via other countries?

I haven't seen a reverse stance since the late 90s.  Were the scientists lying?

I believe the following article was written before fracking became widespread.

CNN - World's wealthiest 16 percent uses 80 percent of natural resources - October 12, 1999

NEW YORK (CNN) -- As scientists note the arrival of the six billionth human being on the planet, they also are warning that 16 percent of the world's population is consuming some 80 percent of its natural resources.

That's the estimated toll the wealthiest populations on the globe -- the United States, Europe and Japan -- are taking from the earth's natural bounty to sustain their way of life.

In the U.S. alone, says Emily Matthews of the World Resources Institute, every man, woman and child is responsible for the consumption of about 25 tons of raw materials each year.

Americans, while making up only four percent of the world's population, operate one third of its automobiles. U.S. citizens consume one quarter of the world's global energy supply.

Perhaps a more graphic example is that of the lowly quarter-pound hamburger. To produce just one requires 1.2 pounds of grain to feed the cattle, and 100 gallons of water -- part of the hidden cost consumers never see.

Resources safe for now, but what about pollution?

Resources -- at least in the Western Hemisphere -- do not appear to be immediately threatened, leading some experts to reason that the real danger is not scarcity.

"We are really working our way through the ocean's harvest," says Matthews. "And I don't think we will run out of fish. We will substitute fish-farming for ocean fisheries."

And as other parts of the world continue to grow and develop -- Matthews believes projections of a global population of nine billion in 50 years are not unreasonable -- the pressures will become even greater.

Scientists believe during that period demand for energy will triple. So will manufacturing and, unless changes in the current way of doing things are made, so will pollution.

This may be the most serious problem facing the planet -- not how much is being taken away from it, but how much is being dumped back into it.

C'mon, Sean... You know better. China is the biggest polluter, because it has the biggest population. Per capita, America is bigger.

The richest country should be doing

Country is not a person/people. 

Which individuals in the US are responsible for making the moral/ethical decisions with the health of the world's population in mind? 

I doubt that we have many in government because of the rising poverty and wealth inequality we have seen for decades in the US as Wall Street was bailed out to the detriment of Main Street.

If the US individuals in US government don't have the ability to address and solve issues in our own country, why should they be expected to address and solve issues in other countries?

Not even close to true

Pretty close to true. 

Article with 2011 data.  The US is 5th among nations with a population of over 1 million citizens.

How many Earths do we need? - BBC News It has been suggested that if everyone on the planet consumed as much as the average US citizen, four Earths would be needed to sustain them. But where does this claim originate, and how is it calculated?

and a really good BBC article from 2016.

BBC - Earth - How many people can our planet really support?

So if a world population of 11 billion is probably unsustainable, how many people, in theory, could Earth support?

Bradshaw says that it is nearly impossible to say what this number would be, because it is entirely dependent on technologies like farming, electricity production and transport – and on how many people we are willing to condemn to a life of poverty or malnutrition.

Many people argue that we are well over a sustainable number already, given the lifestyle choices many of us have made and our reluctance to change them. In support of this, they point to the problems of climate change, the biodiversity extinction crisis underway, mass ocean pollution, the fact that one billion people are already starving and that another one billion people have nutrient deficiencies.

Which individuals in the US are responsible for making the moral/ethical decisions with the health of the world's population in mind? 

That's the question, isn't it?

All of us are responsible, each according to the power we hold (and of course, wealth is power). We are at least voters. 

The wealthy are greatly responsible...

The wealthy are greatly responsible...

What new system should be enacted so that life is "fair" for everyone?

Should all wealth be divided equally with everyone on the planet so everyone is equally rich or equally poor?

Should everyone have an assigned job with equal hours so the system is "fair"?

Or as noted above in an above comment, should the world leaders focus on proven methods for humane population reduction - education and freedom for women to take control of their lives?

Should all wealth be divided equally ...  Should everyone have an assigned job...

I don't think anyone is proposing such policies. 

OTOH... this is not good:

According to the latest Fed data, the top 1% of Americans have a combined net worth of $34.2 trillion (or 30.4% of all household wealth in the U.S.), while the bottom 50% of the population holds just $2.1 trillion combined (or 1.9% of all wealth).

I don't think anyone is proposing such policies

Who is proposing any policies that are "fair"?

Again, what does "fair" mean and what person is in charge of making and enacting laws to ensure that "fair" is applied to over 7 billion people and counting?    

It is impossible to work on and solve social issues without clear definitions and goals.  

Social issues like poverty are used as political issues to gain votes when it is convenient.  Poverty isn't a racial issue.  Poverty is a worldwide human issue and should be treated as such.   

Who is proposing any policies that are "fair"?

I don't know of anyone who uses that word, perhaps because (as you say) it's so hard to define.

Obviously, there's no one person who decides policy. Personally, I don't care for the idea of a ''world dictator''.

''Eliminating poverty'' would indeed be a good common goal. And you're right: it avoids explosive topics like race, religion, and ethnicity.

'Eliminating poverty'' would indeed be a good common goal.

Moving right along.

We can't define "fair".

So how do we define "poverty"?

Again, definitions matter if we care about solutions.

So how do we define "poverty"?

That's not too hard. It's a certain percentage of the average regional revenue. I'm not competent to give details, but that's what experts are for.

It's a certain percentage of the average regional revenue.

So has nothing to do with desired lifestyle?

desired lifestyle

I'm not sure what you mean.

Why should we solve everyone's problems?

Why are you asking me? I never said we should.

What would Jesus say ? 

Many years ago a former Prime Minister of Canada, Lester B. Pearson, founded the United Nations Peacekeeping Force.  Where are they when this is happening?  And even if they were there, have they even been more of a detriment than of any real benefit recently?