Eventually, the only thing that could save us from exponential population growth without bloodshed will be a worldwide treaty imposing limits on reproduction. Voluntary limitation of reproduction is (eventually) doomed to failure because of evolution. It's another "prisoner's dilemma" writ large, and the only good solution to that kind of problem is government.

Oh, I think you are right, Captain. Also, I think it is one of those situations where people who are normally enemies would find themselves on the same side of the fence. Fundamentalist Christians won't like it, but neither would Zero Population Growth Environmentalists. I think even some feminists would think it was just a way for men to steal the mojo of women.

One of my favorite parts of the film was the red haired woman who I think was meant to know the story and recognize the pregnant fellow. The way she rattled on was so believable. I am certain the first man who gets pregnant will listen to tons of long pointless stories even from those on his side...

Berticus, point taken even if it's an extreme scenerio. I've said all I need to say on the subject and further commenting would just be repetitive. Especially since it's such an unimportant issue getting blown out of proportion. I'm not arguing against gay rights, just that I disagree with the lifestyle. I still stand by my previous assertions of morality. The "you can't convince me" comment is not for scientific proof on the root cause of homosexuality, but the morality of it. Seriously, are your base set of beliefs going to change because of a little banter on an internet discussion board? Most likely not.

Raven, mostly repressed Christian sexual attitudes come from traditions with no real Biblical basis. There's not too much about sex in the Bible other than basics like don't sleep with animals, the same gender, and staying faithful to your spouse... things like that. A whole lot of times I find Christians with ideas that have no Biblical basis, like dancing. I actually know people that think it's inappropriate to dance. I have no idea where they got that from and they don't either. You're right though. Religion is a bad topic of conversation so I'll leave it alone. I just wanted to put that out there. Not all Christians are Westboro material.

On another note, where are you getting overpopulation from? Food production today is so efficient that we can produce enough food right now to feed the entire world's population till they're content and still have tons left over. The problem is with inefficient infrastructure and tryannical governments. Hypothetically, if you took every single person on the earth today and gave them all 1 acre of land to live on, we would all fit inside the US, Brazil, and Australia leaving the rest of the world completely empty. Hell, 95% of our own country is still undeveloped. It just so happens that people flock to live in already densely populated areas. Population growth would be less of a problem if there were fewer governments maintaining power by oppressing their people, not by stopping reproduction.

Actually, now that I've thought about it some more, berticus' assertion that by having homosexual individuals occasionally crop up in the mix this could be beneficial to the extended family by producing adults that do not reproduce and therefore work to support the group without making more mouths to feed, sounds like a good plan when thought of on a species wide scale.

Because, if looked at from that angle, one could say that encouraging gays to live as they choose, we would effectively be helping to cap our own population growth, something that seriously is needed, (as it might not be so apparent now, but by they time I am old and grey I believe it will be... worldwide, there are too many mouths to feed, too many cars to fill with oil). I think it would behoove us as a species to encourage a segment of the population to sit out from the reproduction game... too bad though, that will never happen, it might in this country, if only out of dogged determination to uphold the individual's rights, but otherwise, a worldwide application of this would take a massive species wide shift in perception... and, sigh... that will never happen, or at least it won't in time to make a difference.

I voted for it because it was interesting, but I have ethical concerns about immortality. Sure, right now we're already using medical technology to make our lives last longer, but nothing makes us immortal. This has nothing to do with religion either, because I'm an atheist. I think about population growth if people never die. Aren't there enough people walking the Earth already without a bunch multi-centenarian freaks taking up space? And even if we all stop reproducing just to accomodate our eternal bodies, then how vibrant can our species be if we can't evolve?

I'd like to travel through space and attain higher consciousness too, but if doing this on a large scale sacrifices the viability of our species down the road then I have to oppose it.

The crusades and the inquisition are just the first things that come to mind. Some churches have contributed to a lot of ills more recently in the last 100 years, such as complicity and cooperation with Nazi Germany and fascist Italy, molestation of thousands of altar boys, opposing the use of condoms (thereby causing faster population growth and more malnutrition and poverty), and delaying the apology for the treatment of Galileo until 1993. Millions of people are going to die of AIDS or starvation because of the pope's ridiculous and unjustifiable opposition to the use of condoms.

It's not just her or one party, it's the system in general. They've got us so twisted up with partisanship and taking sides that we don't look at the results enough anymore. For example take my favorite subject, the drug war. Think there are any good guys?

http://www.sentencingproject.org/Admin/Documents/publications/inc_comparative_intl.pdf

First page after the cover sheet it shows combined prison/jail totals from 1925 through 2003, fairly stable in line with population growth for decades then an explosion with the drug war. Look at the rate of growth through the drug war and tell me who the good guys are and when they were in charge. If we want out neither party is the answer, they both had exactly the same result, the system grew at about the same rate under both parties.

Once we start following a party or an ideology we're just tools, they can take us anywhere they want to and we won't even question it. Start watching the results and demanding performance.

BGW, the only reason George Washington is blue is because sad sacks like you throw his name around in some kind of I-ride-the-short-bus attempt at patriotism. You better think twice before you start calling people here traitors, because most folks around here are more informed than you, more literate than you, and care a hell of a lot more about the USA than you.

Anyone that parrots semi-retarded, oversimplified talking points about immigration is no patriot or fan of the Constitution (or whatever the last hate buzz-words is - islamofascist, gay marriage, etc.)

Look, immigration has always been what makes this country great. If it wasn't for H1-B, student Visa, illegal workers... this country would not have had a dot-com boom. There are more companies than you can imagine started by immigrants and people you hate. In fact, the US is the only major first world country with positive population growth, which can be attributed to ... guest what? You like your Social Security? Guess what is paying for it when you retire? Illegals who pay in and never collect. Guess what makes your WalMart profitable and running smooth? Guess why your stock portfolio goes up? Guess who picks your fruits and vegetables?

What I initally addressed is the LAPD violation of the Constitution. You would willingly give over your Rights in order to spew some "illegal immigrant" hatred. First of all, the Constitution should strive to protect all humans, anywhere. Secondly, go read some constitutional law. (Obviously other than rights to taxpayer funded programs, protection from deportation, and voting..)

Immigration proceedings are matters of administrative law, not criminal law. (Until Ashcroft and Abu-Gonzales created Gitmo detention centers)

http://www.slate.com/id/1008367/
http://www.nlg.org/resources/kyr/kyr_english.htm

the Bill of Rights applies to everyone, even illegal immigrants. So an immigrant, legal or illegal, prosecuted under the criminal code has the right to due process, a speedy and public trial, and other rights protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

(US v. Verdugo-Urquidez) Implies the Fourth Amend search and seizures does not apply to non-residents (in the case of border issues)

(Martinez-Aguero v. Gonzales) "aliens stopped at the border have a constitutional right to be free from false imprisonment and the use of excessive force by law enforcement personnel."


(Plyer v. Doe) No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

U.S. CONST. amend XIV, § 1. (No State shall…deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[.])

I'm not sure where half-breeds like you learned how to read the Bill of Rights and see where it says "citizens" have the following rights, but I still maintain, this country (and George Washington's memory) would be better off if you choke on a taco.