About Population Control.

patco

Village Sponsor
#1
I just felt that this one needed its own the thread. It's an answer to a comment from a thread posted earlier.
The argument is that tumejazana sana Kenya and I countered with this reply.

This is a very very simplistic view . Government projects that are the equivalent analogy of building advanced ultra mordern road networks for people with no cars, then few people drive their cars on those roads and then the roads are a lounge pad for drying maize and cows. Surely? Anybody with half a brain can see the intentional lack of prioritization and borrowing funds at high interest rates that can are ill afforded to benefit a certain minority class of people. Taking these projects into wildlife corridors and water catchment areas and wetlands thats detrimental for eco sustainability. I support depopulation, we have already too many problems of corruption and poor governance without having a burgeoning population mostly comprising piss poor populace. I would support a government initiative to forcefully sterilise those with 4 kids .Our population growth is unsustastainable. Period. Lets stop being defensive. If he Prince William who is a trillinaire doesnt have 10 kids what is a woman without a pot to piss in doing having 8 kids a piece. This is plain irresponsible and government should mitigate this before it gets out of hand.
If population sizes are such a huge issue then why is China a super power? In fact let me just point out to you the most populated places on earth : Monaco, Singapore, Hong Kong, Macau, Gibraltar, Taiwan, Bahrain... hio list unaiona aje? Do those look like poor countries? On the contrary these are economic power houses. Jehovah God of heaven is not crazy when he says fill the earth. Unless of course you don't believe in Him. Americans adopted **** full throttle in the 1970s and that didn't improve the economy. (**** being one of the key population control methods on the planet.)
In fact the American economy faltered and declined and America's girls' fertility decreased drastically. And worst of all crimes sort of increased in some black neighborhoods. **** was meant to tackle the population in crime prone black neighborhoods. Also some economists have argued that since arbotion was legalised in America in 1973 the total economic loss caused by the over 50 million abortions to the American economy is somewhere in the order of $35 trillion dollars. Let that sink in. $35 trillion dollars lost to the U.S. economy. The U.S. GDP is currently just over $18trillion.

We are talking lifetime earnings, buying power, baby clothes, diapers, the houses these 50 million babies would have bought, the cars they would have owned etcetera... zote zilitupwa dustbin and still counting. Woefully still is the contribution to society that those 50 million citizens could have brought. We are talking contributions in education research, sports, medical research, the arts, politics, maybe one of them would have been president instead of Bush.

And yes, Americans have aborted the whole of Kenya's population plus ten million more since 1973. 3000 babies are aborted daily in the U.S. In China abortions total an estimated 400 million over the decades. 400 MILLION PEOPLE ABORTED IN CHINA. Economic value on the Chinese economy... who the f**k knows.

Here in Kenya a sizeable number of girls also procure abortions nowadays. Has that improved their lives in any way? I'll let them be the judges. But I have enough relatives who decided to keep the baby(ies) and those babies changed those women's lives. In the U.S. some towns are dead... just zombie towns with a few old people, watu hawazaani. Kuja Central Kenya mnajua the ravages of alcohol the less said the better.

Twende China did population control improve the economy? Not really. In fact it created stigma, gender imbalance and other social problems. Today there's even a missing women phenomena, where boys outnumber girls. Hakuna mabibi wa kuoa. Read about the ''LITTLE EMPERORS" phenomena in China where because people were only allowed to have boys, these boys became spoilt, lazy brats. And there's no competition to push them to achieve. Girl child infanticides then increased unchecked. Due to the one child policy China's huge work force is ageing rapidly and there are no replacements workers coming through in the near future. And the same ageing phenomena issue is happening in Germany , South Korea and Japan. In fact some conspiracy theorists pointed out that the war in a Syria was started as a pretext to provide Germany with a labor force for their humongous and labor intensive industries. Their population is ageing, hawana wafanya kazi and they need skilled workers.

In Nyanza Province the AIDS pandemic in the 1990s wrecked havoc on the adult population. The strong workers were removed from the economy. Did the reduced population improve people's lives? Of course not. With the parents gone, formerly rich households were reduced to paupers. No food. Farms went unattended. School Fees' weren't paid thus children dropped out and we all know how that story goes.

One of your most astute proponents, Field Marshall has also always argued that we are overpopulated in Kenya, so, let me today take this opportunity to bring the argument closer home: lets look at Nairobi for instance. One of the most populated places in Kenya. Yet, the richest. In this city of millions, opportunities abound. And the denizens will tell you so and PROVE TO YOU SO. In this city dreams are thought up and dreams come true. Trillions of shillings exchange hands here every single day. Granted there are problems, but the sheer numbers of the people in this city guarantee that hutalala njaa. Doesn't that already render your population argument moot. Twende poorly populated Baringo na akina Turkana... wacha hata niachie hapo vitu zingine unaona they don't need explanation.

There are pros and cons of a huge population but they are often resolved through good leadership. Money funneled into schools. People get literate and learn the value of having smaller families. But a large population isn't necessarily a bad thing. America has over 300 million citizens and they've managed to turn that into an economic advantage. Take Nigeria another nation with a huge population. Some industries like Nollywood and the music industry are really benefiting from a huge consumer base.
 
#8
I do support family planning but for the people saying there are already too many people what do u suppose we do with them? Should we have a genocide we reduce population to 1B? What criteria should we use;
1. All blacks be killed, all asians ama all whites.
2. Should religion be use and we kill all muslims or christians.
3. Most likey scenario rich countries should butcher the poor ones.

These population controll debates are almost always filled with anti-human sentiment I don't know why we are such a self loathing species.
 

Kigui

Village Elder
#9
Nyengese, a comedian (alienda wapi?) Once said, "Mungu alisema tuzae tujaze dunia, jinga ingine hapa Kamau inazaa na kujaza kwake. Mimi siwezi. Nikienda meru nazaa moja, kisumu..."

I concur and rests my case.
 
#10
@patco Lemme handle a paragraph at a time to not miss out anything. Disclaimer :As a Christian I do not support **** on demand,**** after rape,any kind of ****. I understand your logs that large population drive consumption and where there are low population means less consumers hence less production,less industries get the drift. My source is Forbes. Id like a correlation graph about the trends of population growth trends vs Income levels,GDP, Informal settlement ratios, Income per household and other parameters that measure economic standing of a nation. Dont just throw around names or numbers without supporting evidence. We can not be having 60% urban population living in informal settlements with no basic ammenities, then ukuje kutoshow vile our population grwth is what will make us as a country rich ok? This is good formulae for the Bourgeoisie but not for the majority in a third world country, I believe these are all developed countries Yes? We are not !We are a third world country maybe we should check with other countries of our league?

If population sizes are such a huge issue then why is China a super power? In fact let me just point out to you the most populated places on earth : Monaco, Singapore, Hong Kong, Macau, Gibraltar, Taiwan, Bahrain... hio list unaiona aje? Do those look like poor countries? On the contrary these are economic power houses. Jehovah God of heaven is not crazy when he says fill the earth. Unless of course you don't believe in Him. Americans adopted **** full throttle in the 1970s and that didn't improve the economy. (**** being one of the key population control methods on the planet.)
In fact the American economy faltered and declined and America's girls' fertility decreased drastically. And worst of all crimes sort of increased in some black neighborhoods. **** was meant to tackle the population in crime prone black neighborhoods. Also some economists have argued that since arbotion was legalised in America in 1973 the total economic loss caused by the over 50 million abortions to the American economy is somewhere in the order of $35 trillion dollars. Let that sink in. $35 trillion dollars lost to the U.S. economy. The U.S. GDP is currently just over $18trillion.

Crime rates have plunged since the mid-‘90s. After rising sporadically from the early ‘60s onwards, crime rates reached unprecedented peaks in the ‘80s and early ‘90s. It wasn’t until 1995 that crime’s climb gave way to decades of decline. As of 2013, the rate of violent crime victimization, as measured by the U.S. National Victimization Survey, is down 71% from its peak in 1994. Over this same period, the rate of violent crime victimizations for 12- to 24-year-olds—the age bracket most likely to commit crime—fell 78%. Many of these youths are moving to large cities, which is just where violence has subsided the most. Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles have experienced 76% and 90% decreases in the murder rate since 1992, respectively.


Number of Violent Crime Victimizations by Age (1993-2013)

Interestingly, the public remains largely unaware of this trend. In every annual Gallup poll since 2003, a majority of American adults have said that crime is rising. And in a 2013 poll, 56% of Americans said that the number of gun crimes is higher than it was two decades ago—even though gun violence peaked in 1993. The public also clings to outdated notions about which cities are the most dangerous. Although New York City’s violent crime rate is about half that of Dallas or Houston, survey respondents continue to rank New York as the second-most unsafe city in the country and Dallas and Houston as the safest.





Experts are well-aware of this trend and have generated a multitude of theories, none of which hold up under scrutiny. The prosperity thesis argues that crime rates fall when economic conditions improve and rise when the economy sours. While this reasoning seemed to explain falling crime rates during the economic boom of the late ‘90s, it doesn’t explain why crime continued to fall during the recent recession.

Another set of explanations credits changes to the criminal justice system. According to the incarceration argument, crime has declined because more potential offenders are behind bars. But crime rates have continued to fall in states that have lowered their incarceration rates. And the incarceration rate of young offenders is going down (as the rate of older offenders goes up). Another argument is that the death penalty deters criminals. But capital punishment has been in decline since the early ‘00s—and crime rates have continued to fall. Others credit a larger police presence and improved policing tactics. Yet if this were the main driver, we would expect to see dramatic city-by-city differences based on which cities implemented these new tactics—but we don’t see much variation.


More persuasive are explanations that point to environmental and social factors. Backed by scientific evidence, several of these theories are widely credited for playing at least a minor role in crime’s decline. Perhaps the most popular—the lead hypothesis—argues that exposure to lead causes aggressive behavior. Evidence links the passage of the 1970 Clean Air Act and the phasing out of lead from gasoline and paint to decreased crime levels.

Others point to the decreased consumption of substances (such as crack cocaine and alcohol) linked to violent behavior and criminal activity. Freakonomics even links the passage of Roe v. Wade in 1973 with crime’s decline, contending that the shrinking number of unwanted babies showed up as a crime decline 18 or 20 years later. (According to this logic, however, crime rates should have risen when **** rates began falling in the 1980s. This did not happen.)

So what other major explanation is there? Maybe the best candidate is generational change. Youth crime rates started to rise in the late ‘60s, just as the first wave of Boomers entered the youth age bracket. For the next couple of decades, Boomers and first-wave Xers took youth violence to spectacular heights.

It wasn’t until the late ‘90s and early ‘00s—just as Millennials entered the scene— that crime rates began their sharp descent. Unlike Boomers and Xers, Millennials were increasingly looked after, sheltered, and advised to not take risks. As they moved up the age ladder, this generation brought about declines in risky behaviors—including rates of school fighting, teenage pregnancy, smoking, drunk driving, and so on. (See the extensive CDC database on the decline in so-called “youth risk behaviors.”) Of these trends, crime was just one element.

Many of the possible explanations put forth by experts can be regarded as further manifestations of Millennial trends. The removal of lead, for instance, is just one of many precautions public officials took to protect young Millennials from harm. And while Boomer and Xer youth dabbled in recreational drug use (habits they continued as they aged), Millennials have brought about declines in youth drug abuse and alcohol consumption (except for marijuana).

Not only does generational change explain why the decline in crime spans from coast to coast, but it also helps explain why the public continues to believe that crime is rising. In today’s world, when a child goes missing or a teenager is murdered, it makes headlines across every media platform—which, in part, reflects a world that is less tolerant of violence. This means that neighborhoods plagued by crime in the ‘90s will have a difficult time shaking their bad reputations. And as Millennials increasingly move into these urban areas—transforming former hotbeds of crime into havens for hipsters—they will continue to receive frantic phone calls from their concerned parents for many years to come.
 

patco

Village Sponsor
#11
@GeorginaMakena like your article points out, **** was legalized in 1973 and for a large part was expected to curb crime and improve the economy. how? one might ask. Well, black girls for instance could choose to abort and then stay in school and finally get jobs. It was assumed they were aborting future criminals anyway. But instead crime peaked in the 80s and early 90s due especially to the drug trade. So population control through **** didn't really achieve the desired result. In the 90s crime declined due to better leadership which I alluded to in my thread. Clinton put more black families to work. It was that simple.
 
#12
@GeorginaMakena like your article points out, **** was legalized in 1973 and for a large part was expected to curb crime and improve the economy. how? one might ask. Well, black girls for instance could choose to abort and then stay in school and finally get jobs. It was assumed they were aborting future criminals anyway. But instead crime peaked in the 80s and early 90s due especially to the drug trade. So population control through **** didn't really achieve the desired result. In the 90s crime declined due to better leadership which I alluded to in my thread. Clinton put more black families to work. It was that simple.
Legalized **** and crime effect
The effect of legalized **** on crime (also the Donohue–Levitt hypothesis) proposes that legal **** reduces crime. In 1972, the Rockefeller Commission on Population and the American Future published research suggesting such a relationship, citing in part works dating to 1966. In 2001, Steven Levitt of the University of Chicago and John Donohue of Yale University argued, citing their research and earlier studies, that children who are unwanted or whose parents cannot support them are likelier to become criminals, and that there is an inverse correlation between the availability of **** and subsequent crime.
1972 Rockefeller Commission
The 1972 Rockefeller Commission on Population and the American Future is one of the better known early versions of this claim, although it was not the first.[1] The Commission cited research stating that the children of women denied an **** "turned out to have been registered more often with psychiatric services, engaged in more antisocial and criminal behavior, and have been more dependent on public assistance." A 1966 study by Hans Forssman and Inga Thuwe was cited by the Rockefeller Commission and is probably the first serious empirical research on this topic. They studied the children of 188 women who were denied abortions from 1939 to 1941 at the hospital in Gothenburg, Sweden. They compared these unwanted children to another group – the next child born after each of the unwanted children at the hospital. The unwanted children were more likely to grow up in adverse conditions, such as having divorced parents or being raised in foster homes and were more likely to become delinquents and engaged in crime.[2]Supreme Court Justice Blackmun's opinion in Roe v. Wade also referenced the social and private problems "of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it."[3]

2001 Donohue and Levitt study
Steven Levitt of the University of Chicago and John Donohue of Yale University revived discussion of this claim with their 2001 paper "The Impact of Legalized **** on Crime".[4] Donohue and Levitt point to the fact that males aged 18 to 24 are most likely to commit crimes. Data indicates that crime in the United States started to decline in 1992. Donohue and Levitt suggest that the absence of unwanted children, following legalization in 1973, led to a reduction in crime 18 years later, starting in 1992 and dropping sharply in 1995. These would have been the peak crime-committing years of the unborn children.

The authors argue that states that had **** legalized earlier should have the earliest reductions in crime. Donohue and Levitt's study indicates that this indeed has happened: Alaska, California, Hawaii, New York, Oregon and Washington experienced steeper drops in crime, and had legalized **** before Roe v. Wade. Further, states with a high **** rate have experienced a greater reduction in crime, when corrected for factors like average income.[5] Finally, studies in Canada and Australia claim to have established a correlation between legalized **** and overall crime reduction.[5]

Disclaimer: As a Christian I do not endorse **** under any circumstances. This is just for argument sake.
 
Last edited:

patco

Village Sponsor
#14
@GeorginaMakena here are a few proffesors who dispute the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis and there are others:


2001 criticism by Lott and Whitley

The study was criticized by various authors, including a 2001 article by John Lott and John Whitley where they argued that Donohue and Levitt assume that states which completely legalized **** had higher **** rates than states where **** was only legal under certain conditions (many states allowed **** only under certain conditions prior to Roe ) and that CDC statistics do not substantiate this claim. In addition, if **** rates cause crime rates to fall, crime rates should start to fall among the youngest people first and then gradually be seen lowering the crime rate for older and older people. In fact, they argue, the murder rates first start to fall among the oldest criminals and then the next oldest criminals and so on until it last falls among the youngest individuals. Lott and Whitley argue that if Donohue and Levitt are right that 80 percent of the drop in murder rates during the 1990s is due solely to the legalization of ****, their results should be seen in some graphs without anything being controlled for, and that in fact the opposite is true. In addition, Lott and Whitley pointed out that using arrest rate data to proxy crime rates is flawed because arrest for murder can take place many months or even years after the crime occurred. Lott and Whitley claim that using the Supplemental Homicide Report, which links murder data for when the crime occurred with later arrest rate data, reverses Donohue and Levitt's regression results.[6] In 2004, Ted Joyce published a study concluding that the negative association between legalized **** and crime rates reported in Donohue and Levitt's study was actually due to unmeasured period effects from, among other factors, changes in crack cocaine use. [7] In 2009, Joyce reported similar, negative results after analyzing age-specific homicide and murder arrest rates in relation to the legalization of **** across U.S. states and cohorts. [8]
In 2005 Levitt posted a rebuttal to these criticisms on the Freakanomics weblog, in which he re-ran his numbers to address the shortcomings and variables missing from the original study. The new results are nearly identical to those of the original study. Levitt posits that any reasonable use of the data available reinforces the results of the original 2001 paper. [9]


2005 criticism by Foote and Goetz

Later in 2005, Christopher Foote and Christopher Goetz claimed that a computer error in Levitt and Donahue's statistical analysis led to an artificially inflated relationship between legalized **** and crime reduction. Once other crime-associated factors were properly controlled for, they claimed that the effect of **** on arrests was reduced by about half. Foote and Goetz also criticize Levitt and Donahue's use of arrest totals rather than arrests per capita, which takes population size into account. Using Census Bureau population estimates, Foote and Goetz repeated the analysis using arrest rates in place of simple arrest totals, and found that the effect of **** disappeared entirely. [10]
Donohue and Levitt subsequently published a response to the Foote and Goetz paper. [11] The response acknowledged the mistake, but showed that with different methodology, the effect of legalized **** on crime rates still existed. Foote and Goetz, however, soon produced a rebuttal of their own and showed that even after analyzing the data using the methods that Levitt and Donohue recommend, the data does not show a positive correlation between **** rates and crime rates. [12] They are quick to point out that this does not necessarily disprove Levitt's thesis, however, and emphasize that with data this messy and incomplete, it is in all likelihood not even possible to prove or disprove Donohue and Levitt's conclusion.


2007 Reyes leaded gasoline theory

A 2007 study [13] by Jessica Reyes at Amherst College stated: "This implies that, between 1992 and 2002, the phase-out of lead from gasoline was responsible for approximately a 56% decline in violent crime. Sensitivity testing confirms the strength of these results. Results for murder are not robust if New York and the District of Columbia are included, but suggest a substantial elasticity as well. No significant effects are found for property crime. The effect of legalized **** reported by Donohue and Levitt (2001) is largely unaffected, so that **** accounts for a 29% decline in violent crime (elasticity 0.23), and similar declines in murder and property crime. Overall, the phase-out of lead and the legalization of **** appear to have been responsible for significant reductions in violent crime rates."


2008 study of England and Wales by Kahane et al.

A 2008 study co-authored by Leo Kahane of
California State University found no evidence that **** legalization reduced crime in England and Wales. The same study initially replicated Donohue and Levitt's finding of a negative association between **** and crime rates, but that this association "breaks down under the scrutiny of robustness checks."
 

patco

Village Sponsor
#15
@GeorginaMakena finally tha Donahue Levitt hypothesis was financed by the Rockefeller Foundation which supports ****. The Rockefeller wanted to show Americans the benefits of **** by supporting the two professors to write up a flawed report.

From this article : https://www.liveaction.org/news/roc...h-to-legalize-****-in-uruguay-is-no-surprise/

Rockefeller Foundation’s push to legalize **** in uruguay is no surprise

By Guest Contributor | December 27, 2011 , 03:58pm
Planned Parenthood

Margaret Sanger Uruguay is under pressure to decriminalize **** in their country. According to LifeSiteNews, a bill that is being considered, if passed, “would eliminate all penalties for abortions during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.” By the time an unborn child is
twelve weeks old , he or she has had a beating heart for nine weeks, detectable brainwaves for six, can sense touch , and sucks his or her thumb .

“There are international foundations behind these pressures [to legalize ****] like the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, and many more…” -LifeSiteNews

It’s especially notable that the Rockefeller Foundation is pushing for this **** bill to get passed. John D. Rockefeller Sr. and his son, John D. Rockefeller Jr., founded the Rockefeller Foundation in 1913. Margaret Sanger founded the American Birth Control League in 1921 which became known as Planned Parenthood in 1942. She opened her first clinic, the Clinical Research Bureau, in 1923. The clinic was funded by the John D. Rockefeller family, and Sanger continued to receive funding from the Rockefellers for decades, but did so anonymously because supporting Sanger’s birth control mission was “too controversial for [Rockefeller Jr.] to associate himself with [it] publicly.” ( The Rockefeller Century: Three Generations of America’s Greatest Family . John Harr, Peter Johnson, page 191)

John Rockefeller III, son of John D. Rockefeller Jr., established the Population Council in New York in 1952, and was the recipient of the second annual “Margaret Sanger Award” in 1967.

The Rockefeller Foundation’s push for legalized **** in other countries should come as no surprise considering the ties between the Foundation and the largest **** chain in America, Planned Parenthood.
 
#16
I want to be very clear here @patco that there is no point of having huge populations that as a government you have no capacity to serve. Your view is a simplistic one. That infanticide,abortions,pandemics are means of population control,these are coincidental/accidental or damage control ,stop gap measures. A well coordinated population strategy will ensure all these excepts pandemics are stemmed. Now, a very simple example, our traffic jams in Nairobi and major cities,overstretched water and sewerage systems is because we did not have planning in tandem with population growth in terms of expansion of services. So basically we are having the same infrastructure with perhaps over 10M population growth, this is untenable. Either we clamp down on population or expand the resources to fit the growth. When assessing these issues you must look at it frm a macro level. For example how sustainable is it for 60% and more of the urban population to occupy 6% of the land mass in Nairobi and live in uninhabitable environs without basic amenities? With the high population explosion among these informal settlements with 8 kids per a woman. This alone can destabilise even security in Nairobi.

The problem with the HIV pandemic to the economy of Nyanza wasnt the population decrease, it was death of the breadwinners so your argument is completely off. Its because the infrastructure is in urban areas then populations move there to access employment opportunities not that the factories follow where the large populations are. If today you go to Marsabit and put up an EPZ in no time the population will explode. So you need to come out of the micro assesment of issues and look at the bigger picture. We are overstretched with our population even at a growth of 10% we will soon have a crisis.
 

patco

Village Sponsor
#17
@GeorginaMakena but death is population control. When breadwinners died in Nyanza that is population reduction. You're beating around the bush. You've said either clamp down on population or INCREASE resources? How do you clamp down on population?

I support the increase of resources which is related to a thriving population.
 

patco

Village Sponsor
#18
@GeorginaMakena which crisis is this you speak of? Which crisis? Where is the data? There's no crisis.

Just expand housing to meet the needs. A good govt. would regulate construction costs. Increase employment opportunities. There's no substantial proof that population reduction brings economic growth in fact its the opposite that does so.
 

patco

Village Sponsor
#19
@GeorginaMakena family planning is not new in Kenya yet we are increasing, why? I told you why in the other thread. People are increasing because the economy is improving. In the 90s despite what people believe we were poorer and today we are wealthier. Today even owning a car has become the norm. Therefore people breed. You cannot CURB growth. Those are FAKE economics. Well fed people f**k more. If there's less disease, less hunger the population MUST grow.

I CAN TELL YOU HERE AND NOW THERE IS NO STATISTICAL RELATION BETWEEN POPULATION GROWTH AND ECONOMIC GROWTH!

And if you want I can table proof.
 

patco

Village Sponsor
#20
@GeorginaMakena on your,argument concerning the woman in Kibera with 8 children that issue has nothing to do with poverty. 8 children is not POVERTY its just 8 children. It could be 2 children that she still wouldn't be able to take care of. It could even be twenty children that she wouldn't be able to care for. It could even be one child that she isn't capable to care for.

THERE IS NO RELATION BETWEEN ECONOMIC GROWTH AND POPULATION GROWTH.

What will you say if that woman manages to educate all 8 children and they beome successfull people? Our parents are proof of of people who grew up in large families in the poor reserves but today they're thriving. They took us to universities.
 

Top