Quote:
Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth
Firstly Akria, I totally commend you for speaking out in condemnation of this organization. 
You say "they(the government) have nothing to do with the suggestion"
Are you sure about that ?
First, note that the article says: "But critics said doctors and governments had no right to tell parents how many children to have - and that population control could lead to more problems than it solved."
Ok not too much proven so far, but obviously the person that made the statement felt the need to mention government, so I'm not alone at least. |
It sounds like it's simply a criticism of a hypothetical scenario. A good criticism, too; the problems of population control, in my opinion, far outweigh the benefits.
And simply mentioning the government doesn't mean much - Alex Jones could just as easily have been inserted, and it would have been equally groundless and meaningless.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth
|
Well, politicians themselves in fact, as it would have to get through the two houses - individual MPs can in theory vote any way they want, although I appreciate this doesn't work so well in reality.
In any case, simply because something is recommended it doesn't necessitate implementation.
As the eternal parental question goes, 'if your friend told you to jump off a bridge would you do it?'.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth
Sure you may argue that technically that doesn't necessarily mean that government will adopt it as policy, but when we consider the government's green agenda and what's seems to be staring us in the face, we should be very concerned indeed.
Note also I have said several times on this forum what the future government policy would(ok "may") be - was that just a total co-incidence ?
|
It doesn't seem to be staring us in the face at all, at least not in my view.
As for the government's 'green' agenda, I find it very lacking as an argument - given that nuclear power is really all that is needed to make us green, I don't think the government would risk the economic, political and social suicide that would be a British one child policy when the alternative is so clear.
Certainly the possible future Vice-President of the USA would not be happy with it - Clinton has labelled China's one child policy as a fundamental injustice.
The USA itself under Bush has also pulled funding from the United Nations Population Fund because it has not hit out against the policy.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth
Bear in mind if it does becomes policy, then it's too late.
|
We live in a democracy; later governments would have the opportunity to change it, even assuming it managed by some cruel twist of Fate to get passed in the first place.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth
Another thing you may notice is that the above think tank is under the umbrella of the FPRI - i.e. Foreign Policy Research Institute.
Hmmm - interesting ?
Now I wasn't sure what this meant until I went to the section "About FPRI" to see who they were and read their mission statement where it clearly says:
(follow this link - About FPRI)
"Mission
Founded in 1955, FPRI is devoted to bringing the insights of scholarship to bear on the development of policies that advance U.S. national interests. We add perspective to events by fitting them into the larger historical and cultural context of international politics."
U.S National Interests ?!!!!  
Why the hell does the Optimum Population Trust come under the banner of an institute that seeks to advance U.S national interests ?!!!
Oh yes I forgot it's a "global" problem ?! 
So forgive me but it has potentially and most likely everything to do with government policy ! |
It has everything to do with it only if it is entered into Parliament.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth
To think that these "thinks tanks" are independent of government is I believe, a bit naive to say the least.
In truth, they exist as institutions which help support government's policy and interests - hence "U.S national interests".
Note not the interests of the environment, the earth or the world but "policies that advance U.S. national interests."
|
It has the distinct tone of a soundbite.
Please explain how it would be in the national interests of the USA to cripple one of its key allies, anyway.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth
Anyway I apologize to Clippo for calling him an idiot but please wake up and smell the coffee people.
|
It was Besoeker, not Clippo.
As for smelling the coffee, I prefer tea - and even tea leaves (a joke; I've never believed in the psychic rubbish that is peddled about) don't show any sign of a one child policy for the UK.