‘Overpopulation Is A Myth’ Says Mom of 19, Michelle Duggar (Video)

DuggarsVia the Huffington Post:

Michelle Duggar, star of TLC’s reality show, “19 Kids and Counting”, says there needs to be more children because our world needs more joy. And as for overpopulation? That’s just a lie, Duggar recently told the Christian Broadcasting Network in a web interview. “The idea of overpopulation is not accurate,” Duggar says, because the entire population of the world could fit inside of Jacksonville, Florida.

“I agree with Mother Teresa when she said, ‘to say that there are too many children is like saying there are too many flowers,'” Duggar said. She explains how her large family is resourceful and therefore not posing as big of an environmental problem as perceived. They buy used cars, she says, and frequently shop at thrift stores, purchasing things others would discard.

Read More: Huffington Post

60 Comments on "‘Overpopulation Is A Myth’ Says Mom of 19, Michelle Duggar (Video)"

  1. Dont worry Ms. Duggar, it wont be a problem if you’d just give some consideration to my modest proposal…

  2. We can best serve the Earth by calling an airstrike on that woman’s uterus.

    • Simiantongue | Apr 2, 2012 at 11:24 am |

       Or a special forces strike on his testes, right?

      • Calypso_1 | Apr 2, 2012 at 11:29 am |

        Too much of a risk for ‘immaculate conception’ – I suggest a tactical insertion of polyethylene terephthalate fibers into the fallopian tubes. 

      • Eric_D_Read | Apr 2, 2012 at 8:49 pm |

        Take ’em all out just to make sure.

  3. A Non Oh Must | Apr 2, 2012 at 2:05 am |

    19 Erections and Counting.. 

    • Redacted | Apr 2, 2012 at 2:24 am |

      I heard that after 19 children the Vagina becomes sentient and thirsts only for revenge

  4. Hellozio | Apr 2, 2012 at 2:12 am |

    someone  send  this  woman on a  trip  to  china, then  ethiopia    and  lets  see  where   her  belieif in the  myth  lies  then.  wake up  lady  and   take a step  outside  of your  safe    conservative  box  that  you shelter  in

  5. Can we register the Duggers as Chinese citizens so that they might be held to the 1 child law that they are over there… The Duggers should be strapped to a chair beaten with heavy mining tools and left bleeding in the moonlight.

    • feint_ruled | Apr 2, 2012 at 9:01 am |

      How about “no”? As the saying goes, if you like China so much why don’t you go live there?

    • rapemeagain | Apr 2, 2012 at 10:03 am |

      If you got $$$ you can have more than 1 child in China or so I hear…

  6. Misinformation | Apr 2, 2012 at 2:54 am |

    I don’t agree with anything this creepy woman says except, that overpopulation may well be a myth.

    •  So do you think we are living on an infinite planet with infinite resources? That would be a pretty stupid thing to think, especially since it is demonstrably not true.

      • feint_ruled | Apr 2, 2012 at 12:46 pm |

        Now I don’t know whether overpopulation is or isn’t a myth, but the fact that we live on a finite planet with finite resources is neither here nor there.
        The question is are we in danger of reaching sufficient numbers to exhaust those resources? Quite possibly, but you are going to have to come up with a better explanation for us than just “this is not an infinite planet”.

      • Misinformation | Apr 2, 2012 at 11:56 pm |

        No I don’t. Nice straw man though.

        There is currently no resource problem. There is a resource distribution problem. Where are the most resources being used currently? The “developed” world, by far. Where are birth rates falling fastest? The developed world. Hey wait, that fucks up my, “stop having kids, other people”, philosophy.

        There is an overpopulation of ignorance, a lack of critical thinking and logic and little to no creativity on how to solve the resource “problem”. A very small fraction of people are using way more of their “share”.

  7. The Duggers are guilty of people pollution, and should be prosecuted for making the planet an even more toxic place to live.  There just are some people who, like cockroaches and rats, should be treated by the wisdom of the maxim, “Kill it before it reproduces,” or in this case, kill it before it reproduces any more.

  8. Vincent Vega | Apr 2, 2012 at 3:18 am |

    It’s a vagina, not a clown car.

  9. chinagreenelvis | Apr 2, 2012 at 3:51 am |

    First thing’s first: there’s nothing wrong with this woman having lots of kids. There is no practically conceivable “environmental impact” from one family that matters enough to even raise the questions being asked here. Clearly this is not the norm; overpopulation of the planet isn’t a meaningful concern.

    That being said, her argument is severely flawed; it is akin to saying “Well, if you take all the atoms of the planet Earth and you take away all the space inside of them, the whole planet would be the size of a golf ball.” This doesn’t mean the Earth would actually function at that size. Jam-packing the entire population of the planet shoulder-to-shoulder into a single town (giving her claim the benefit of the doubt that it is actually true) has no relation to the resources required to systemically support a certain number of people – people who no doubt need more room than arm’s length to live out their lives.

  10. Slippery.D | Apr 2, 2012 at 3:54 am |

    http://www.overpopulationisamyth.com
    neat little animation/description. check the math and the facts, its an interesting theory. population dispersion is more of a likely candidate for pre-conceived notions about how densely populated all areas of the globe must be. True there are billions in asia, but how much of that are in cities? with miles and miles of habitable land, sparcely populated just like in countries such as Canada, there is plenty of room and resources out there.. but the illusion of overpopulation is way more indicative to resource scarcity, availability and profitability..

    • It never ceases to amaze me how stupid some….. ugh… it is SIMPLE MATH. We do not have infinite resources. We are living in a closed system with finite space and finite resources. Overpopulation is already a massive problem, let alone what it’s going to look like in a few decades. That’s not even considering all the species we are driving into extinction because we eat up all their space.

      • VaudeVillain | Apr 2, 2012 at 2:03 pm |

        In the words of MC Hawking… “Earth is not a closed system, it is powered by the Sun, so fuck the damned Creationists, yo Doomsday get my gun”.

  11. John Smith | Apr 2, 2012 at 4:00 am |

    Every sperm is sacred.
    Every sperm is great.
    If a sperm is wasted,
    God gets quite irate.

  12. Redacted | Apr 2, 2012 at 7:17 am |

    Mathematically speaking the Earth must have a finite number of Humans it can support. This is due to the simple fact that resources are limited. The Earth is not an infinite space, so all things within it are finite. Add to this how our appetite for resources increases ever onward.
     The Earth cannot support 7 billion people forever, and every Human born lowers the time our Earth can support us by draining resources not only according to itself, but according to its offspring and their offspring, and on and on.Simple math reveals that we are using resources which are not infinite.
    If you cannot understand how resources cannot be infinite. you should probably go try your luck with the Chimpanzee. They may only just kill you.

    • This comment is the ultimate…2 thumbs up Eric. 

    • What you’re referring to is “carrying capacity”:

      “The carrying capacity of a biological species in an environment is the maximum population size of the species that the environment can sustain indefinitely, given the food, habitat, water and other necessities available in the environment.”

    • Eric Wrong | Apr 2, 2012 at 10:30 am |

       What does a black man know about math?

  13. emperorreagan | Apr 2, 2012 at 7:57 am |

    I’m for a 2 kid law, with violation of the law with a third child resulting in mandatory sterilization.

    •  Ya, the fact that they have 19 kids and have them all fully clothed, fully fed, and with a roof over their head is definitely grounds for sterilization (rolls eyes). Everyone is different, I would rather have the Duggars making children and raising them right then having less than stellar parents raising them up to be criminals. Notice no one on this thread is complaining about their ability as parents? I don’t like them having all those kids, but its their bodies and pocketbook. I have more of a problem with people who have 1,2,3 … kids and can’t pay for them without taking a government check.

      • I would not pass judgement on them as parents until we see how the kids develop, but I cannot believe that 19 children will ever get the same loving care from their parents as one or two.  I grew up with two brothers and two sisters, and my parents tried very hard, but there were definitely times when time with us individually was lacking.  And this was with a stay-at-home Mom.  Clothes, food and a roof do not a good childhood make.  And I hope you wear a condom every time you have sex.

        • So your argument against their right to reproduce is that you don’t feel that each kid will get “equal parent time”. Yes, cause all kids are created equal … please leave your baggage at the door. Logically, there is no reason for these two to be sterilized other than everyone’s personal bias. Like I said, I wouldn’t do it, but I’m not going to force my opinion as law.

          • Mr Willow | Apr 2, 2012 at 1:59 pm |

            Yes, cause all kids are created equal 

            Oh, no. There’s the oldest—the star, the hope, who you invest everything in—the youngest—the darling apple of the parent’s eye—and the middle—who just. . . reads, or something. 

            Neglect can be very damaging to a child. 

            For example, kid comes home with homework. Kid needs help with homework. Parent can’t help with homework because (to stay on point) there are eighteen other kids who also need help with homework. Kid, therefore, does not receive help, and turns in homework riddled with wrong answers. Grades slip, and even if said child does well, it isn’t that big of a deal because there are eighteen other children that are doing as well (so it’s not that big a deal) or better (so they receive most of the praise) or worse (so they receive more aid), and that is just one scenario. 

            Not to mention whatever affection parents may give one or two children is, then, spread out over so many individuals that inevitably one, two, or twelve get lost. This happens in families that only have three or four kids, and can have a severely detrimental effect on their psyche—inferiority complex, feelings of abandonment, etc. etc. This kind of thing happens to only-childs who have parents that treat the television as a babysitter for gods’ sake, or parents with alcohol problems. 

            So, they feel as though they are un-loved, un-wanted, not cared for—because you can buy them everything they want, and it won’t mean anything without sincere affection (hell, even focused attention) to accompany it—so they give up on themselves anyway because if their own parents just can’t find the time, why on earth should they try—at anything?

      • emperorreagan | Apr 2, 2012 at 11:29 am |

        Nobody pays the entire cost for raising their children.  Total public spending per child is somewhere in the neighborhood of $7,000-$8,000 per year plus other tax subsidies granted to parents.  On average, public spending covers ~45%-50% of the yearly costs associated with raising a child (excluding miscellaneous tax subsidies available to parents).  Every parent is benefiting from public policy intended to encourage parenthood.  So don’t kid yourself – everyone’s taking a government check, though some less explicitly.  The US’s failure to develop initiatives to deal with poverty effectively and choice to throw money at it instead of developing meaningful public policy may make impoverished parents an easy target, but they’re not the only ones being subsidized.

        Public money and a limited carrying capacity for the earth makes it more than just a “their bodies, their pocketbook” problem.  Overpopulation is a problem that must be addressed, eventually.  With what seems to be a rising level of willful ignorance in the US (with Michelle Duggar’s delusional statements sparking this particular discussion), I don’t have much hope for the education and access to birth control route.

        • 95% of 43,000 statistics are 84% made up (by volume of course). Especially without sources.

          • emperorreagan | Apr 2, 2012 at 12:38 pm |

            If you actually care, try searching the congressional budget office’s reports, or looking at any of a number of public policy journals.  Or just do a thought experiment of your own – imagine the cost of public schools/government subsidies to charter and private schools, on average, by itself.  

                  

          • asdfasdf | Apr 2, 2012 at 9:07 pm |

            cause its not like kids ever grow up to contribute anything to society or pay taxes or become scientists.

      • Calypso_1 | Apr 2, 2012 at 11:36 am |

        Families like this are able to feed and cloth their hordes because they are supported by networks of money laundering fundie ‘worship centers’ that need poster children so that their flocks can get well cued warm fuzzies to initiate the desire to make more chosen people.

  14. mpanthera | Apr 2, 2012 at 8:50 am |

    That and raising a cult of their own.

  15. Who uses the most resources?

    We don’t have too many people, we have too many rich people.

    • Jin The Ninja | Apr 2, 2012 at 11:54 am |

      exactly. inequitable (and unsustainable production of) division of resources is a far more pressing problem.

      • Hadrian999 | Apr 2, 2012 at 1:02 pm |

         but are you willing to live as a peasant in order to boost sustainability

        • Jin The Ninja | Apr 2, 2012 at 3:51 pm |

          i’m willing to try something different.

          • Hadrian999 | Apr 2, 2012 at 6:42 pm |

            the hard part is getting enough people to go along, there are some interesting things happening in sustainable building but people would rather try to brute force unsustainable lifestyles.

          • Jin The Ninja | Apr 2, 2012 at 6:57 pm |

            i am also seeing very interesting things in sustainable architecture and building- and i think the internet is a very valuable democratic tool, that it opens up borders in a way that was impossible before. for me tech is desireable part of the ‘future’ but i also equally value artisinal and craftsmen production methods.

          • Hadrian999 | Apr 2, 2012 at 7:21 pm |

            it’s tricky, well made things are expensive on the front end but last a long time, mass produced junk is cheap but you have to constantly replace it, and the people who make it have no pride of accomplishment

          • gelikeasics | Apr 3, 2012 at 3:12 am |

            for some reason I always think of arcosanti when I hear of architecture and sustainability, maybe I ought to check back in after all these years…

          • Jin The Ninja | Apr 3, 2012 at 4:56 am |

            certainly communes/planned eco communities of the 60s and 70s really radically changed the face of eco-tecture. i think it’s interesting the current trend is more towards passive, traditional methods of building than the aggressive technological approach of the 90s.

  16. saymyname saymyname | Apr 2, 2012 at 11:12 am |

    just because you can doesn’t mean you should

  17. Calypso_1 | Apr 2, 2012 at 12:55 pm |

    Overpopulation a myth because “…entire population of the world if they were stood shoulder to shoulder would fit in the city limits of Jacksonville.” 
     
    I wonder if she would feel a little overpopulated in this circumstance once everybody had to take a dump.

  18. Calypso_1 | Apr 2, 2012 at 12:59 pm |

    This woman’s facial expressions reek of brain washing.

  19. It is your right to reproduce.
    Guess what? The Duggars have won and are winning. BIG TIME. I don’t want kids so I don’t give a shit.
    But as a living being on this planet, NOBODY, including you ignorant fucks, has the right to tell anyone to stop reproducing.
    Want your gene pool to continue? Then have as many kids as you want. But if shit goes down, I will steal and defend myself from anyone’s child.
    Fertility rates are dropping.
    Keep bitching and not having kids. The Duggars will replace us all soon.

  20. JoiquimCouteau | Apr 2, 2012 at 2:09 pm |

    Overpopulation is a myth like cities are the ultimate realization of human potential

  21. If all the people stood shoulder to shoulder in the world……. 7 Billion People at say 1 foot per persons shoulder width would = 1, 326, 000 miles in length. Enough to travel around the world over 50 times. Thank god for cramped high rise apartments and the people living in squalor. We do need space to grow food too, right?

  22. DeepCough | Apr 2, 2012 at 11:12 pm |

    Let’s trick ’em into a “Hunger Games.” That will solve this minor “population problem” real damn quick.

  23. rileyrifle | Apr 2, 2012 at 11:17 pm |

    For all those who contend that these people are “supporting them on their own, without government assistance” you must either be ignorant of the fact, or willfully ignoring, that these people have incorporated themselves as a church and therefore are not paying taxes as you or I would if we had that many children. Besides that, there are reports of them bullying others in their community into giving them free or discounted items with threats of boycotts or protests. Regardless, (as this may be simple hearsay) if they aren’t paying taxes as they should they ARE getting government handouts, simply not in the same explicit fashion as someone who is on foodstamps. While I cannot morally suggest that they be punished for the size of their family, I can say that I feel that their promotion of this type of family is morally reprehensible and dangerous. Besides that, I do not understand how one can suggest that this type of family is functioning normally. When there are that many children the older children are definitely forced to help raise the younger ones, robbing them of their childhood and adolescence. Knowing that this creates problems in smaller families (4+) I cannot imagine the problems it will cause in this type of family. I’m sure there will be much pain and resentment when they grow into adults (and their brainwashing wears off.)

  24. Tdubis70 | Apr 3, 2012 at 7:13 am |

    Really…if we were really “over populated” how come you never here about anyone falling of the edges of the earth??

  25. It doesn’t fucking matter if her herd of 20 is fed with mac and cheese and clothed in thrift shops, award winning parents right there.  It doesn’t end there.  It’s feasibly impossible to actually parent that many kids (attention, time spent), her and her pedophile looking hubby are just machines producing offspring while the older sibling take on the role of actually raising her brood without ever being given the chance to realize who they there are as people.  I imagine it takes most of the day to even handle kitchen duties and change a toilet paper rolls.

    I also really don’t understand why random degenerates like herself get air time on tv, she’s borderline an object.  American you’re a twilight zone.

  26. Overconsumption is the problem- not overpopulation.  People don’t want to have kids, but then they buy thousands of dollars worth of electronics and get into debt because they can’t buy them outright and then they self-centeredly live alone in big old McMansions, sucking up energy left and right for all their electronic devices all the while pointing the finger at the family of 5 where the kids are all wearing hand-me-downs from the previous kids, everyone’s getting the most possible use out of everything (or fixing it if possible) instead of just replacing everything and having it all be disposable, and tell them that their KIDS are the problem instead of the fact that the average person who lives an overindulgent materialistic lifestyle makes at least a hundred thousand times more garbage and energy waste than a hundred thousand children being brought up in modest homes where cost saving measures are in place.

  27. Keep in mind that this woman believes that the universe was created by a magical wizard that lives in the sky!

  28. It’s possible that she’s right about the standing shoulder to shoulder thing.  

    But, it takes more land than that to support a human being.  You need land to grow the crops to feed them.  You need sewage facilities, water sanitation, a home for them to live in, schools, etc.  There are a lot of things she’s not taking into account.  

  29. BarttheCat | Apr 9, 2012 at 1:40 am |

    In her dreams, she is running from her husband’s erect penis.

Comments are closed.