Amen, Solver! "Some pigs are more equal than others..." re-read 'Animal Farm' folks. OR watch 'Hunger Games' again.

Agree. Also unlike the US, China has no issue putting the screws to a group or family squirting out children willy-nilly. Go ahead, and live in the street. There aren't any people in China on welfare with cell phones.

I find it irritating when people latch on to some negative feature, but don't read the premise. The premise of the note was "IF THERE IS REALLY AWG OR SIMILAR ISSUE CAUSED BY HUMANS..."
If you agree this is the problem, then continue reading. Otherwise stop wasting my time. I did not assert it is the problem.

Individual choice is clearly the first, correct approach for everything, until one individual's choice compels another to servitude.

With >60% of our government's funding going to social programs, a case can be made for population being an issue. I am not making this case here; however, if I have to repeat myself again, I'm going to assume this is a religious argument...again.

Still, “evil” speech needs to be included with free speech, so each individual can evaluate it, and mock it, if they choose.

There is a topic on this.
One person’s evil is another person’s road to Utopia.

Recall China's one child per family policy? It resulted in female infanticide on a monstrous scale because of a preference for male children, so now the male-female balance is way out of whack, with about 4 million more young males than available females in that generation. The policy has since been dropped, but the usual way to bring things back into line is to arrange a war that reduces the male population. Maybe that's why China keeps pushing so many other countries' buttons, looking for a way to reduce their young male problem before they get restless and start thinking about another revolution.

Made me laugh, then I realized some idiot in this world would take it seriously.

Collective population control can be brutally simple. Find the gene or part of the brain that resists sacrificing for the collective, then remove that part. In a few generations, Utopia!
/s

Of course, there would be exemptions for this procedure.

If a person is in favor of population control then certain things must happen for population control to occur. Some entity must have the power to determine proper population levels, and some entity must have the power to enforce it.

No check of premise is needed. If anyone is in favor of population control these two things are true. The only exception is if you leave it up to the individual and then its no longer population control, its simply personal choice as it should be.

Clearly something like this can not be enforced by joining the local rotary club. Please make sure you check the premise of my statement, and then acknowledge if people are the problem, then people are the simplest solution.

It is not necessary to start soylent green. Time is our friend. population can be controlled by not adding to it, vs subtracting from it.

$5Au supposes he is an "accidental" environmentalist. He delights progressives/socialists/etc. with his hybrid car, LED lightbulbs, battery-powered lawnmower, and solar panels UNTIL they dig too deeply. He bought the car because nobody wanted this model and the dealer was desperate to sell. He started buying energy efficient bulbs back in the days when they were available only by mail because he despises changing burned out bulbs. He bought the lawnmower because he hates maintenance on gasoline engines. And he installed solar panels because of federal and tax tax incentives plus a rebate from Duke Energy mandated by the state public service commission. He gets a lot of shocked into silence reactions from enviro-nuts who ask too many questions.

I can agree, but I do not think those who act like beasts are anything other than beasts.

The question is what is bestial behavior? My guess would be that we may have different definitions of the term.

What government (or other organization) do you propose defines who lives and who dies?

What science is the need for an action of population control based on?

Who has the right to enforce it?

Think about the kind of power this suggests giving to governments, or some other collective group. It would an utter loss of all freedom to allow anyone to have this kind of power.

the solution is not in controls, its in capitalism. As a society gets free markets they become more affluent. As they become more affluent the free market expands creating even greater wealth.

As a society becomes more wealthy they have resources to put towards things like pollution, energy use, deforestation and they will because they have the resources and want to have a forest area to go camp in, hike in....

All of these things as well as self governing population occur when free markets are allowed to increase wealth. The rich get richer, so do the poor. Children are no longer assets but expenses and as a result fewer people choose to have children and those that do have fewer of them.

There is a great chapter on this in "enlightenment now" which puts all kinds of data behind it.

Any other method requires tyranny to do it. Some one must have tyrannical power. I am against that. I am for the natural evolution that occurs for the environment when a free market is allowed to be free.

And that's precisely what the entire thing is about: elitism. What they do not understand is that one of the reasons we have such choice and consumer options in this world is because of the plethora of people who can then offer them. With reduced human population goes reduced choice in alternatives. Of course, that is precisely what an elitist wants. It is the "their way or the highway" mentality.

There's little intellectual difference between a Democrat and an animal, except that the animal is going to be more genuine and loyal.

Enviro-mentals. Very sick people.

Not having pets changes nothing.

It was only a reference for first hand information/knowledge.

The fact remains that some humanoids (by OUC) behave like beasts when it comes to animals. It only proves their own degradation.

Environmentalist articles I've read don't call for human extinction, but some serious "culling" down to no more than 100 million persons, contained/restrained to perhaps no more than 10 megacities across the globe. The culling mechanism preferred is usually a laboratory developed virus that results in a global pandemic. A secondary (plan B, if you will) method is an engineered world famine. The least desired, but surprisingly not refused, method is a global war.

Of course all of these destructive paths will leave only the enlightened surviving, who will dedicate themselves to saving the planet, undoing any remaining human filthy byproducts left behind. Exactly how they do this remains just a pious vision, like a godless religion.

It is the naive stupidity of the environmentalist believers that has made the globalist elite their allies. The globalists have sold the environmentalists on the idea that the only way to enact their vision is through a global government with absolute power. Of course where the two groups differ wildly is in what the end game is, and the objectives sought. While the environmentalists seek a greatly reduced population, the globalists really don't care how many people there are, so long as they exercise absolute control. The environmentalists' end game is saving the planet, while the globalists' end game is all power and wealth to the globalist elite. As to the survivors, should population reduction is a result, the globalists don't give a rat's patootie about planet saving, but care very much that they and their like minded cohorts are the survivors.

Thank goodness, people are too concerned about determining their gender, or which bathroom to use, to worry about destroying mankind.

No pets here. I like animals, and have had pets in the past, but not in the past 30 years. The idea that all pets must live indoors is not going to happen with my household, plus we like to travel in places where pets are not allowed. So for the betterment of humans AND pets, no pets for us.

I get a big laugh out of all the "lost dog/lost cat" entreaties I see on various neighborhood networks. "Oh, my dog is just like my child; but he got out of the fence and I must have him back," My answer to that is always the same - Oh really? You allow your children out to run on the streets and don't secure the doors and fences around your home?

Maybe a call to CPS is in order, then.

Actually, it makes complete sense (that you interpret it that way). I can't even disagree.

I will not argue your views. just your stated facts. we do not ALL HAVE PETS. now that is a fact.

I do think it is ridiculous that the environmentalist from any group have not advocated to control population as a means to control...you name it (pollution, CO2, energy use, deforestation, on, on on).
If there is really AGW or similar issue, limiting the population to contributors, and culling the inordinate number of parasites is an obvious solution.

"will May and the New York Times acknowledge their part in the attack? "
Not even if the New Yellow Times is the target for destruction.
Radical environmentalists are insane and completely out of touch with reality.
In my view PETA is an acronym for People Eating Tasty Animals.
My view also includes homo sapiens as a rational being that uses technology to make life more than just survival and tries to maintain an environment that is as benign as possible for all species that do not threaten homo sapiens.

Human[oids], Exceller,.. not conscious humans...Big difference.

For years I have joked that the goal of the environmentalist is the extinction of man.