Sunta
-
Content Count
2,030 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Sunta
-
-
I highly doubt anyone will read this, but if you would, maybe you would understand a tiny bit better where I'm coming from:
1. What is overpopulation?
Overpopulation occurrs when an area is populated too heavily for the available resources and the capacity of the environment. When an area is overpopulated, its population cannot be maintained without destroying nonrenewable resources and without affecting the carrying capacity of the environment (the earth’s ability to support current and future inhabitants).
2. Is overpopulation a problem in the U.S.?
The U.S. is the only major industrialized country still growing, and we show no signs of stopping. The Census shows we grew by 13 percent between 1990 & 2000--and by 83 percent the last 50 years! You can see evidence of the problem all around you--vanishing open spaces, Water and energy shortages, soil erosion, and air pollution, as well as overcrowded schools, urban sprawl, and traffic congestion.
At 292 million Americans, we’re already well over our carrying capacity, and Census projections say we could grow to over 400 million by 2050–that’s another 100 million people to feed, clothe, educate, and house.
3. Isn’t overpopulation a global problem?
Overpopulation is indeed a problem around the globe, but population issues must be solved at the national level, as global agreements are largely unenforceable and fail to recognize the unique history, customs, and challenges of each country.
From an environmental standpoint, U.S. overpopulation is far worse for the environment than overpopulation anywhere else, because of our inordinately high use of resources. And of course, we have the most power to effect change right here at home.
4. What size do you believe the United States should be?
NPG has surveyed scientists over 30 years and asked: What’s the optimum population size before you start exceeding an area’s carrying capacity and harming the environment? The scientific consensus is that 150-200 million is the ideal population size for the U.S. That’s about the size of the U.S. 50 years ago.
5. What is the optimum population size for the world?
Considering food production, the load that human activities are imposing on the biosphere, global warming, chemicals and pollution, labor and wages, issues of social equity, and the problems of crowding, disease, and misery, NPG believes that a world population size of two to three billion would be optimal.
6. I ’ve heard that the entire population of the world could fit inside Texas.
People need more land than just the land they’re standing on–they need land for raising food, producing their oil and Water, recreation and entertainment, shopping, transportation, waste handling, and much more. And overpopulation isn’t about how many people you can jam into a given area; it’s about what the optimum population size is before you start destroying resources and quality of life.
7. The U.S. is growing at about one percent per year.
Why should we be worried about such a small rate?
Although an increase of one percent may sound small, such a rate is monumental when talking about a population the size of the United States. A one percent increase means 2.9 million new people in a year and 29 million in a decade.
8. Isn’t the real problem that we will soon have too few working people to support the elderly? Why are you worried about population growth?
You’re thinking of Europe and Japan, which comprise a very small fraction of world population–about 14 percent. There, fertility decline is leading to a reversal of population growth. This offers those countries the opportunity to decide what population size is best for them. If they decide a larger size is better suited for them, they can raise their fertility back to replacement level or increase immigration.
Worldwide, however, population is still rising quickly. The United Nation’s medium projection is for an increase of more than 50 percent by 2050.
9. Does the economy depend on population growth?
Population growth benefits business interests, since it means more development. But as an area becomes more populated, its infrastructure starts straining under the weight of all the new people who must be served. Police forces, roads, and schools no longer satisfy the demands of a growing population. Farmland and forests are sacrificed to strip malls and housing developments. And as more and more schools, sanitary systems, roads, libraries, and water services must be built, eventually growth no longer lowers the average cost of services, but instead raises it. When this point is reached, growth increases the tax burden on communities; the revenue brought in by new growth is outweighed by the costs it creates. Meanwhile, congestion increases, schools become more crowded, and pollution levels rise.
10. Do we need more people to support the Social Security system?
There is no denying that Social Security's viability requires some tough decisions. But adding scores of millions of new workers would at best postpone, not solve, the Social Security problem–and at an enormous cost in resource depletion and environmental damage. Rather, we should see the aging of America as an opportunity to begin transitioning to sustainability.
11. Food and basic commodities have been getting cheaper at the same time our population has expanded, so why should we worry about resource scarcities?
In order to produce the greater and greater quantities of food needed to satisfy an expanding population, our lands have been deforested and overgrazed and our soil eroded. And don’t forget the quality of life issues associated with population growth: more pollution, more sprawl, tighter housing markets, overcrowded schools, traffic congestion, and vanishing open spaces.
12. How can we achieve lower population?
Three factors influence population: births, deaths, and migration. We can reduce population by lowering our fertility rate (the average number of children per woman) and reducing immigration. If almost all women had no more than two children, our fertility rate would drop to 1.5, because many women choose to have just one or none. Immigration levels are currently over one million a year–five times traditional averages–and should be returned to more traditional levels of 100,000 to 200,000 annually.
13. Can we tell people how to make a personal decision like family size?
We believe people should be educated about how overpopulation affects the environment and everyone’s quality of life and have access to family planning, and then–on their own–make responsible family planning decisions.
14. How could we lower overall fertility?
We could achieve a smaller, more sustainable fertility rate through a combination of social leadership, non-coercive incentives to stop at one or two children (such as tax incentives), free access to family planning education and contraceptives to anyone who wants it, and education. Studies show that as education level goes up, fertility (particularly early fertility) goes down.
15. What is NPG’s position on family planning?
We believe that anyone who wants it should have access to family planning education and contraceptives. It's essential that we raise awareness about family planning and not allow taboos to prevent open discussion about issues so vital to our nation's health.
16. What is NPG's view of abortion?
We support Roe vs. Wade and subsequent Supreme Court interpretations that affirm but limit women's right to abortion and protect the fetus if it has arrived at a viable stage.
There is still a debate about regulating human fertility, because those who oppose it have not yet come to understand what the theory of evolution tells us about human behavior. Charles Darwin had a titanic role in the history of human thought. Out of his observations of finches in the Galapagos Islands came the theory of evolution, which explained things that had never been explainable before about population.
All successful species, he said, have the ability to bear more young than their environment can support. This enables species to recover from food-short periods and it enables the best adapted to expand and fill new environmental niches when the opportunity presents. It also leads to overpopulation. The successful survive. The others die off.
That excess fecundity is central to the population dynamics of living creatures. It was true of human populations until we learned to practice fertility regulation by family planning. Like other animals, our population growth was limited by high mortality, particularly of the young. Medical and public health advances, sanitation and the growth of agricultural yields saved us for a time from that fate, but the process goes on. As human populations continue to grow, they are meeting those limits. The Darwinian controls, imposed in part by our destruction of the ecosystem, will stop the growth.
Seen in that light, family planning is perhaps the most fundamental advance in the human condition. It permits the human species to control its growth by regulating fertility, rather than waiting for the control to come from misery and rising mortality. Family planning is not just something that we are entitled to practice for our own purposes. It is something that the Earth itself badly needs, to escape the damage of continued human population growth. It is essential to the preservation of ecological balance in the face of a species grown far too successful. Within our species, it is desperately needed by the poor and fertile of the world so they can escape the evolutionary curse of excess fecundity and so their children will not be trapped in high mortality.
Such foresight is good in theory, but it may not be sufficient in practice. The common good is probably the last thing on people's minds when they are making love, and abortion may be necessary, for the good of the woman and of society, when contraception is not practiced. In the United States, there is one induced abortion for every three live births. If many of those pregnancies had come to term, fertility and population growth would be much higher than they are. Without legal abortions, there would be (1) more illegal abortions, which are usually septic and dangerous, and (2) more unwanted children, many of them presumably to single mothers less responsible than other women -- and they are hardly ideal parents.
Abortion is the least attractive means of managing birth rates. It has been declining with the widespread availability of contraceptive techniques. It would probably decline further if the other measures were in effect -- including over-the-counter availability of morning after pills. The medical profession, including the scientific advisory council to the Food and Drug Administration, has recommended that they be made available, but the FDA has deferred a decision.
The very idea of family planning is not very old, and the idea of tying it to social ends is a new one in human experience. We are far from knowing how to do it. Until we have learned, abortion plays a role as the final resort for women who don't want children or can't raise them. And Roe vs. Wade provides the legal framework to reconcile it with other societal goals.
17. Won’t technology save us from the problems raised by population growth?
Despite technological advancements, human numbers will ultimately overwhelm our ecosystems. We will eventually run out of finite resources, such as space and water. Even the CIA has weighed in on the issue, predicting in its “Global Trends 2015” report that parts of the U.S. will experience water shortages by 2015. The report stated that water conservation, expanded use of desalinization, developing genetically modified crops that use less water or more saline water, and importing water “will not be sufficient to substantially change the outlook for water shortages in 2015.”
18. Could we negate the results of population growth by reducing our consumption?
Increasing our population means increasing consumption. Every new person consumes resources, takes up space, and disposes of waste products. Even if we can reduce consumption by half, no progress can be achieved if we allow the population to double.
19. Won’t “smart growth” plans help accommodate our increasing numbers?
Rather than packing more and more people into more and more crowded areas, we need to tackle the problem at its source: an ever-growing population. When populations continue to expand, communities must find places to house, educate, and employ new residents and thus, even the best-intentioned smart growth efforts will eventually run up against population pressures.
20. Isn’t immigration just a shifting of people? Why does it matter where people are living?
From the earth’s perspective, population growth is particularly significant in the affluent U.S., where even the environmentally conscious have levels of consumption far exceeding the rest of the world. The U.S. has 5 percent of the world’s population but consumes 25 percent of its resources. When immigrants come here, they adopt our lifestyle and ultimately have a far worse impact on the earth than they would have had in their home country.
21. Isn’t the United States a nation of immigrants?
Immigration levels today are far higher than traditional levels; in the mid 1950s, our immigration was less than one-third what it is today. Additionally, the U.S. today is a very different country than in years past. We’ve settled the last frontiers and open space is no longer a commodity. Further population growth now means diminishing farmlands and otherwise harming our environment.
-
Can I clarify something? I will admit that some fundamentalists make me angry, yes, they make me angry, and because of that anger, I expressed myself in words such as "idiots" etc.
As I mentioned on another post, I would like to extend an apology to anyone on this thread who personally has 15 or more children. I do absolutely have grave environmental concerns regarding having so many children, the effects of which are very well-documented, whether or not any experts have spoken about them on shows, as one poster pointed out that they have not mentioned having alot of kids.
Saying I would be afraid to meet Christ... that was not intended to be inflammatory at all, but indeed, some fundamentalists are often so mean-spirited and hateful that it does make me wonder... would Jesus do things like picket Gay people's funerals, piercing the hearts of their loved ones even more? Would he strip Gay people of their civil rights? Would he murder abortion doctors? Would he have training camps that teach young people to die for him, like some Muslims do for their God? These are the things I see fundamentalists doing, and it makes me mad. When I then talk about them, I don't say things in polite terms, because I'm already angry at what I feel are gross injustices against me, personally.
My very best girlfriend is Christian and she goes to church every Sunday. She thinks the statue is deeply offensive and that people in the Quiverfull movement are "nutcases" (her word, not mine). So I know that there are Christians who agree with me, and I deeply respect her and her beliefs.
Based on what I've seen, I just don't think that most fundamentalist Christians are very nice people, whatsoever. I was already angry about that when I started the thread.
Nevertheless, I would never try and stop them from expressing their beliefs although I want the freedom to express mine in the way that I feel.
I never thought I would be offending anyone on this thread personally, because I never thought anyone here would have 15 or more children. I view that as very extreme, and as I've said many times, a really bad idea in terms of being socially/environmentally conscious.
I would venture to guess that when people learn painful truths about themselves (such as "gee, maybe having 20 children really is contributing to the downfall of the environment" or "Gosh, maybe driving that enormous SUV really is contributing to global warming") it's really upsetting, and that accounts for some of the outrage over my comments.
If people would really honestly take the time to learn about something new, they could be so enriched, as Green pointed out.
Unfortunately, it always seems to be the fundamentalists tihat are the most resistant to ever going outside of their comfort zones.
By the way, I really loved watching choir practice tonight and met alot of nice Christians.
See? I'm not as evil as ya'll think I am...
-
And now if you will all kindly excuse me for the evening, for I am in Memphis, and am going to church to hear some gospel music, with people who actually care about their communities, helping others, and being Christ-like.
Following up to Sunday morning's church service where I was warmly greeted by folks who don't focus on having a zillion children, stripping Gays of their civil rights, or bombing abortion clinics, but instead want to get their neighbors off drugs, help victims of domestic abuse, and form alliances with people of other religions.
-
None of us Christians here are nice? None?
Actually I will retract that. Actually I think that many people's posts here have been very polite and well-stated, like Dianechef's for example. However, I don't know the religious affliation of every single person here, and was referring to those that identified themselves as "fundamentalists", because they are the ones who have been the most nasty and hateful. But that's how it always is; Fred Phelps demonstrating at AIDS victim's funerals, "Christians" bombing abortion clinics and murdering abortion doctors, fundamentalists on this thread acting far more obnoxious than me by attacking me personally, my motives, my relationship with my husband, my intellect.
I did not personally target or attack one person here. If there is someone here who actually has more than 15 children, please identify yourself and I will be happy to apologize to you and re-state my opinion in a more polite way to you, specifically. Otherwise the rest of you can forget any apology since it's not you I'm speaking about.
I think one poster said it best, that just because someone is a Christian it does not mean they are like Christ.
Hold on... wiping tears from my eyes from laughing...
Ok, so anyway, the fundamentalists can try to intimidate me all they want, just like they try to intimidate politically by taking Gay people's and women's rights away, but I am not afraid.
I think most fundamentalists are the meanest, nastiest, most hateful people on earth, and this thread has done nothing but reinforce my opinion.
-
You can hurt people's feelings and disrespect them, but they do have the right to tell you that you did. You don't get to play the victim then, and say "You called me names." That's not right because you started the thread. You are ineligible for victim status.
Oh, being a Christian does not in anyway mean I am just like Christ...it means I have been saved by Christ. We are not perfect; we are sinners. That might be the most difficult acknowledgement of all.
Ohhh... I understand now! You don't have to act like Christ, and can name-call and be nasty, and it's fine. But because you're "saved", and forgiven at the end of the day, you're absolved of all of your guilt for your behavior. Thank you for enlightening me. So THAT's why none of the so-called "Christians" here are nice. By the way, thanks for the laugh.
For the record, everyone has the "right" to say whatever they want, and I never stated otherwise.
I think it's funny though when people who claim to be Christian act with such vehement disdain for others. Even funnier when they turn around and say being a Christian in no way means they are like Christ.
All I did was state an opinion about people who have huge amounts of children and say it was bad for the environment.
Again, why don't you "Christians" who are arguing against me take a bit of time to actually learn something instead of spending energy arguing with me?
If it because then you might come to realize that indeed each child DOES place a huge, huge burden on our natural resources?
If you all want to bury your head in the sand when it comes to the environment, that's on you, but don't cry and complain when we run out of Water and oil, or when the ozone layer disappears completely.
I am not afraid of fundamentalists, even though you're scary.
-
I'm certainly not allowed to talk that way, not that I want to, but suddenly it's a problem when you get called on it? Back down, Sunta. You were wrong. Your words hurt real people, angered real people, and unnecessarily offended real people. Your words weren't just thoughts, ideas, ideologies, or intellectually stimulating debate, but your words were toward real people who have a face and a name. You'd do better trying not to dig yourself out. An apology for these folks would be nice. Here's hoping.
Between you and Gadgetlady, you two have called me:
Judgemental, intolerant, hypocritical, disdainful, hateful, disingenuous, close-minded, snooty, holier-than-thou, and said I need to have my head examined.
All because I said having enormous amounts of children was dumb.
It IS dumb, and you two obviously are NOT educated regarding the environmental effects, are you?
If you were, you would not jump down my throat and call me names like that, prompting me to fire back and defend myself.
You have no right to tell me to back down, and I think you're the one who's wrong.
Look at yourselves before you start pointing fingers about who has the hateful and holier than thou attitude.
I still think people that have extreme amounts children are idiots, and that they are uneducated regarding the environment.
For the record I know there must be some evangelical Christians out there who aren't as mean spirited as you two, and maybe even some that agree with me.
If you think you two act like Jesus would have acted, I'd be scared to meet him.
-
I didn't know what that point might be, but you went to great lengths to wave your arms wildly about it.
You honestly don't know what the point might be?
Really?
Again, I was the dumb one to think a fundamentalist could ever understand the deep and heartfelt level of offense my husband could feel when viewing that statue. You would never equate being Jewish with being horribly upset over a statue that denigrates non-Christians religions.
You're right! I'm the stupid one here.
-
I think the point is that Sunta claims to be "open-minded and tolerant" when she clearly is not. No one is denying her right to free speech. But for her to attempt to mask her judgmental, intolerant, disdainful, hateful statements with the claim that she is open-minded and tolerant is just plain disingenuous.And no, Sunta, I'm not referring to your position on that ridiculous statue. And I don't care that your husband is Jewish, as you've been drilling in many of your posts (making me wonder if YOU care that he's Jewish????). I'm referring to the very first post (and the ones that followed) that started this thread. If you truly believe you are open-minded and tolerant, as you have stated many times, you need to have your head examined. You are neither. Declaring a group of people to be idiotic and dumb is judgmental, closed-minded, and intolerant. No two ways about it. You don't save face by claiming you don't want to regulate them.
First of all, are you kidding with the "makes me wonder if you care that he's Jewish"???
You're kidding, right?
I implore anyone on this thread to explain to me why it's the fundamentalist Christians on this thread who are the nastiest, rudeset, most ill-behaved people here?
Can you honestly tell me that attacking me below the belt about my 14 year relationship with my husband and basically insinuating that you "wonder" if I'm a racist is a loving, Christian attitude?
I was the dumb one to think that the fundamentalist Christians on this thread could actually have an intelligent discussion, or seperate my opinion on people who have 20 children from my opinion about Christians as a whole.
The fundamentalists here have absolutely given me a whole new outlook on fundamentalism.
Are all fundamentalists as nasty and obnoxious as you?
-
And PS:
It's still Idiotic To Have 20 Children.
And no, I don't think those people are educated about the ENVIRONMENT.
Not because they disagree with me, because having that many children is a DUMB idea for OUR RESOURCES.
It's just like what some Christians do with the bible: take words OUT OF CONTEXT and then TWIST them for their own purposes.
-
What is NOT okay is to publicly speak with such disdain about the personal religious beliefs of others.
Oh really? NOT ok???
I'm so sorry... I thought I lived in the United States and had freedom of speech. Am I mistaken?
Could you kindly make a list of things that are "ok" and "not ok" to speak "publicly"?
Perhaps you would feel more comfortable moving to North Korea. There, they are not allowed to speak in public about lots of things. You'd fit in well.
I'll speak about what I want, how I want, and no religious person is going to stop me. That's the exact reason our forefathers came to this country to begin with. They were not allowed to say anything against the religion of the time. Did you know that?
You're not going to silence me, even though you'd like to.
Seems you don't value freedoms citizens of the US hold most dear.
-
It seems terribly "judgementally hypocritic" to be educated and to openly scorn the beliefs of others, when you should know better. Unless, of course, you are NOT open-minded and tolerant, in which case, I owe you an apology for breaking the 9th Commandment (AGAIN
) and I'm sorry.I have not "scorned" your beliefs! I said I don't like the statue of "liberation" for Christ.
Don't patronize me by telling me I should "know better".
How exactly am I not open-minded and tolerant? I said the statue should remain and I would not interfere with anyone's right to have it there.
I would not make a law regarding the amount of children people can have.
Stop calling me a judgemental hypocrite, please, when I have clearly stated that everyone has a right to erect whatever statue they want. It personally offends me and my Jewish husband.
What don't you undrestand about that?
Why are you the only one, a supposed "Christian", who is name-calling and attacking someone personally?
That always cracks me up, when "Christians" are soooo un-Christ-like.
-
I'm sorry, wasn't it you who started this thread with
"Some of these idiots have 12, 18 and 20 kids.
Dumb, dumb, dumb."
Yes, that was me, and I do think that having that many children nowadays is idiotic.
I do.
My point was that I was not personally attacking any one person on this board specifically. Rather I was stating that in reference to having children, purposely overpopulating our earth is idiotic.
I would like to now take this opportunity to invite all those who disagree to become familiar with issues relating to overpopulation, since I don't think you could be, and still support people who have 20 children, because that would be very irresponsible as it comes to protecting the environment.
If a church believed that dumping toxic chemicals into the river brought them closer to God, I would think that was idiotic too. It's a matter of common sense. Every child stresses the environment, our Water supply, our forests. Having 20 is adding 20 times the stress to our resources.
Do you think our grandparents had to wait three hours to see a doctor? No, they did not. Do you think people died in ER waiting rooms because they could not be seen fast enough? No, that was not a common occurence back when the population was not so out of control.
If the people who were having these large amounts of children would stop and think for a moment about the real issues that affect us all, maybe they would have a different perspective.
-
Yet now you're proposing that you should be able to tell people how many children they should or shouldn't have? When really what you want to stop is "breeders", "fundies", "idiots", and any other derogatory names you can come up with for Christians?
I have said this before, but I guess I have to say it again... no, I do not think I should be able to tell anyone how many children they should have. Rather, I wish that, on their own, people would be responsible enough to educate themselves about environmental issues and then choose a path that would assist in protecting the environment from its demise.
Why is this wish so threatening to those that disagree?
For the record, I have not called anyone here an idiot, a fundie, or a breeder.
All I did was state that having upwards of 20 children was a dumb idea for the environment, and say I was horrified by a statue that states we should unite America with Christianity.
My husband is Jewish and he does not believe in Jesus. But he's not supposed to be offended by that statue?
What about someone who is Muslim? or Hindu? What should they think about it?
I'll say it again: I support the right of that statue to be there even though I find it scary.
-
It's frustrating to see snooty attitudes about how dumb and stupid and uneducated and idiotic OTHER people are.
Um... is this referring to me? Funny... I've never thought of myself as "snooty".
Just wanted to clarify that when I was talking about "dumb" I was not talking about any one specific person, but rather the concept of having as many children as possible, because it is bad for the environment.
Secondly, while I find the statue offensive (standing and viewing it with my Jewish husband didn't help matters), I would absolutely defend that church's right to display it. It is a freedom of speech matter and I would never want to violate that. Therefore, I believe it's safe to say I'm not a "judgemental hypocrite".
Thirdly, I am confused as to why my post was taken as "disrespectful" of people's beliefs. I deeply respect everyone's beliefs, but I really don't want those beliefs informing my legislature. The statue says "America return to Christ". But not everyone in America believes in Christ, you know?
Next, I would like to point out that the only personal attacks on this thread have been directed at me from The Best Me, Not from me to anyone specific on this board, and so I think it's fair to state that I have not "scorned" anyone nor "attacked" anyone, as I have been accused of doing.
Finally, if anyone wants to start a thread about heathens who don't believe in Jesus going to hell, I would fully support that. Also, I would find it extraordinarily amusing.
Please note I am not "ridiculing" your beliefs, but the fact that I could inspire someone to state that I'm damned to hell just simply makes me giggle.
-
My main concern is the environment and our dwindling natural resources around the world, not just here in the US.
I don't think the government should be able to legislate how many children people are allowed to have, but I do wish that people would be responsible on their own and realize the burden each child places on the earth, because each child really does place a burden on the earth and the ozone layer.
Ideally people would "replace" themselves and that's it.
Personally, I don't have children, but if I did, I would never have more than two, because I am educated with regard to the environmental problems we are facing now.
But wishing that people would do a little reading and research is futile, because people always just want to do what the hell they want and they don't seem to care about anything else.
And when God comes into the picture with regard to this issue, well then forget it, because all logic and intellect goes right out the window.
Also just had to note I am in Memphis for vacation right now and I find it truly horrifying that we came across a giant replica of the Statue of Liberty (about 20 stories high), holding an enormous cross in her hand instead of a torch and the ten commandments in her other hand. On the base of it, it says "America return to Christ".
If that's not illogical and ignorant, then I don't know what is.
-
I just read this article on the "Quiverfull" movement where the idea is to have as many kids as possible and that "God is the only one who can open or close the womb". Some of these idiots have 12, 18 and 20 kids.
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
I'll just assume that everyone on this forum is intelligent enough to know the reasons why this is a really bad idea, such as our severely dwindling environmental resources, for one.
On a more mundane level, every time someone complains about a new development going up behind their house, or long lines at the supermarket, or horrible traffic, I feel like screaming "that's because people are having too many *bleeping* kids!
It makes me so mad that people are so dumb.
-
Congratulations Carlene on your anniversary! I can't wait to get to 97 pounds lost. What an amazing accomplishment!
-
I need to ammend my list since recently I have PBing every week. So far, here are the things which have made me PB:
Thick-cut or "kettle cooked" potato chips
Nuts
French fries
Any kind of fast food
Collard greens
Flax seeds
Hot dogs
Most of these have made me PB more than once, so they are now on my "no no" list. After just one time I will try a food again, but once it happens again with a specific food, that food is forever banned.
-
Hi!
So far I've lost 68 pounds since I was banded in February, which I am happy about. I'm PBing once a week or so, though. I'm debating getting a small unfill but want to give myself time to work some new "rules" before I do that. I'm going to try the following for a few weeks and see if I can go for a month without PBing:
1. Tiny bites (no more normal bites and then swallowing in segments)
2. More careful chewing (I'm pretty good about this one now but sometimes mess up and don't chew like I should)
3. Have a hot drink before eating Breakfast or lunch
4. Have one to two glasses of wine before eating dinner (this helps the absolute most; I've only PB'd once when following this and that was on collard greens, which have caused me to PB several times)
5. WAIT 30 seconds in between bites (have never tried this one yet)
If I follow all of these rules, I think I can fend off alot of the PBing. My question is, when I reach goal, I'm thinking of having a small unfill so that I can take in more calories, enjoy bigger bites, and not PB. I think I will need a small unfill to maintain my weight and not lose more weight as this fill is pretty tight and I'm losing well.
Anyone else thinking of getting a small unfill at goal? Am I being too optimistic? I just wish there was a way to stop PBing as I hate it sooooo much and it makes me very miserable (as well as risking band slippage).
-
I routinely eat a cup at most meals, but occasionally eat a cup and a half. I've lost 65 lbs. so far and my surgeon says my food intake is fine. I don't think I could get by on 1/4 cup of food each meal! I want to be able to enjoy my life...
-
Hi Carlene,
I posted about the horrible PB I had last night on the support forum. I get really upset when I PB. Last night I PB'd on a filbert. I'd been eating nuts fine for months and months! The band is so fickle! I too am on liquids for 24 hours and will attempt a soft dinner. I feel for you!
-
Hi,
I was banded February 2006, and so far am down almost 65 pounds, which is wonderful. But despite my best efforts, I am still PB'ing about once a week to once every two weeks. I don't call it PB because it's really more like vomiting. Every time this happens, I grow really despondant and sad. I get scared and depressed, and start thinking "what if my band slipped?" "what if my stomach swells shut?" (this did happen to me once and I had to get an unfill), "Did I do the right thing by getting the band?" The mental aspect of it is worse than the physical. When I do PB, I go on liquids and/or soft foods for at least 24 hours, then stick with soft or "safe" foods for a few days after that as well. My esophogus hurts for two to three days every time, and that just makes me more depressed. I obsess over things like traveling and what if my stomach closes up when I'm far away from my doctor, etc. I don't think I'm too tight because honestly, sometimes I do go two weeks without an episode. During the times when food goes down fine, I feel great and thrilled with my band, but when I PB, I go to the opposite end of the spectrum and start thinking that maybe this wasn't the right choice for me. I hate PBing soooooo much. It upsets me tremendously. Does anyone else experience this? What do you do to combat these feelings? Sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night and I am so freaked out that I have an implant inside me, and I think "oh my God, what made me think this would be a good idea?" Maybe I have "physcological intolerance" to the band? If it weren't for PBing, I would be thrilled with it, but PBing is so scary and upsetting that it's making me second guess everything. Whenever it happens I'm in a bad mood the entire rest of the day and the next day too. The worst is, I never know what will set it off. Last night it was nuts. I've been eating nuts just fine for months and then bam, one filbert and I'm in agony.
I guess if PBing was not associated with band slippage, I would be ok with it, it's just the idea that it could cause me to lose my band that gets to me. Every time it happens I think "oh no, this is it! I'll probably have to have emergency surgery!"
Anyone else share my thoughts?
-
For me, the main thing I needed was appetite control. Yes, Weight Watchers is a great program, but I was always hungry on it. Sure, some days I could eat very bulky foods like Beans and whole grain bread, and on those days I was not starving, but it's unrealistic to eat "perfect" foods all day every day. The band lets me eat everything and anything in small portions, and that's how I want to live. I don't want to live on beans and vegetables every day. My diet now consists of 75% healthy foods (beans, vegetables, fruits, nuts, lean meats, sugar free Protein shakes) and 25% "normal" foods (pizza, Pasta, hamburgers, chicken wings, sweets). It's very, very varied. I eat everything under the sun and am thrilled with the variety and choices I have. If I ate like this on Weight Watchers, I would be starving constantly. One small slice of pizza on Weight Watchers, pre-band, would have me starving an hour later. For me, the band is crucial to the appetite control I need to be succesful.
-
I hope that man rots in the eternal fires of hell where he belongs. Karma will come to get him eventually. Well, at least we can take pleasure in the knowledge that he must be a very unhappy and depressed person to be filled with so much rage for no reason. I admire your ability to remain composed. In encounters like that I tend to flip out pretty badly. People like him always get what's coming to them in the end. He must have suffered pretty badly in his life in order to act like that with no provocation. I hope that as much as he has suffered, he suffers ever so much more...
Stop having so many damn kids; population control, anyone?
in Rants & Raves
Posted
I want to thank you for something else a bit odd. Last Tuesday I quit smoking. Yup, no more butts out the window as I teach my children not to litter. No more second-hand smoke for anyone around me, even the smoke from my hair and clothes. No more filters in the land fills. No more money going to tobacco companies, and no more of my cigarrette taxes going to the government. Best of all, no more smoke in my lungs. Good decision all around, I'd say.
Firstly, a big heartfelt congratulations to you. That is truly wonderful, and I mean that.
If anyone can raise H*** enough to divert people away from their normal schedules and to a rousing argument, it's me. I'm the loudmouth, the bad girl, the rebel (well, actually I'm a big dork, but I like to think of myself as the bad girl; my friends and I joke often that we're in a "girl gang" even though we're in our 30's and 40's LOL).
I'm very happy that my latest rant contributed in some way to such a triumph.
Congratulations again.