• Human population control - Should this practice be enforced?
    164 replies, posted
I agree, we run around calling rats pests in our houses when its actually us being pests in their nature. We are a disease to the earth, and we must bring our sentience to use and restore that harmony we destroyed.
We aren't going to be overpopulated any time soon, hundreds die every day, and people starving in some countries isn't a matter of the world not having enough food, it's more of them not having access to food, and people not helping them out by sending them food or money. Killing our own kind because we're worried about something we have no proper evidence of is just stupid.
You could limit parents to having 2 children as a less extreme method of population control. The population would no longer grow, but slowly shrink as we lose people to accidents / incidents / etc. But there will always be a fuckload of strings attached to any type of "population control".
If I want a lot of kids, I can keep having them. The government has no say in how many kids I want to have.
There is no way to limit birthrates without using abortion. People will always accidentally get pregnant, and some people will always want more kids. And since society only bitches about how bad abortion is, we're fucked. And besides, nobody could force a woman to get an abortion. [QUOTE]Population is actually leveling off, just you wait for the baby boom era to die out and it should stay fairly constant. The idea is that with 1 or 2 children, you're replacing the mother and father. But until the parents die off, they'll count as 4 people instead of 2; there's a few decades of overlap between the two.[/QUOTE] Yeah I don't usually see people with shitloads of kids now days, compared to my parents and grandparents who grew up with like 6 other siblings.
People are only taking in the population amount and food requirements. In the next few decades, the requirements will be extraordinary. More and more third world countries are becoming first world countries causing living standards to rapidly raise. First world countries require much more resources because of higher living standards, such as technology, cars, food, fresh water, and the largest one, energy. The projected energy requirements 50 years from now is insane and unless we tap some new significant energy source, we are doomed. 16% of the worlds population consumes 80% of the worlds raw resources. 5% of the world population consumes 26% of the worlds energy. The fact is we [I]can not[/I] provide first world standards 50 years from now at the rate first world living is rising. We [I]can not[/I] continue living as we do, it just isn't possible. I'm not saying human population control is the answer, but the size of our species is at the roots of the problem. That can not be denied.
[QUOTE=Ragy;34037487]People are only taking in the population amount and food requirements. In the next few decades, the requirements will be extraordinary. More and more third world countries are becoming first world countries causing living standards to rapidly raise. First world countries require much more resources because of higher living standards, such as technology, cars, food, fresh water, and the largest one, energy. The projected energy requirements 50 years from now is insane and unless we tap some new significant energy source, we are doomed. 16% of the worlds population consumes 80% of the worlds raw resources. 5% of the world population consumes 26% of the worlds energy. The fact is we [I]can not[/I] provide first world standards 50 years from now at the rate first world living is rising. We [I]can not[/I] continue living as we do, it just isn't possible. I'm not saying human population control is the answer, but the size of our species is at the roots of the problem. That can not be denied.[/QUOTE] Might want to check your math there mate
Simple. Remove all state funding from people who have more than 3 kids. Encourage contraception.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;34037880]Might want to check your math there mate[/QUOTE] There wasn't any math in my post, only statistics. What are you referring to?
lmao yes let's have population control even though population growth naturally declines in pretty much every developed country
[QUOTE=Lazor;34038073]lmao yes let's have population control even though population growth naturally declines in pretty much every developed country[/QUOTE] Out population growth isn't expected to decline until 50 years to 100 years from now. Even if your logic was true, human population would have to decline very, very significantly.
[QUOTE=Ragy;34037987]There wasn't any math in my post, only statistics. What are you referring to?[/QUOTE] Remind me to wear glasses before I comment.
[QUOTE=Ragy;34038378]Out population growth isn't expected to decline until 50 years to 100 years from now. Even if your logic was true, human population would have to decline very, very significantly.[/QUOTE] my "logic"? these are empirical facts, son [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility[/url] you can't just look at the earth as a whole and be like "welp, guess we're over populated!" that's a gross oversimplification
Instead of population control, why don't we work on colonizing other planets or moons?
[QUOTE=teslacoil;34038941]Instead of population control, why don't we work on colonizing other planets or moons?[/QUOTE] Well, the whole NASA budget cuts thing is one reason why we aren't doing so.
[QUOTE=Lazor;34038822]my "logic"? these are empirical facts, son [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility[/url] you can't just look at the earth as a whole and be like "welp, guess we're over populated!" that's a gross oversimplification[/QUOTE] All you did was link to a Wikipedia article about sub-replacement fertility. If you would have actually taken the time to read the thread you would have notice I specifically stated I was not claiming our world is overpopulated at this time, but rather in the future the demand for energy and raw resources will skyrocket to the point we will not be able to supply it. I know it's difficult for you to wrap your head around it, so I'll explain it a little clearer. Sure, if we all lived in caves as in prehistoric times, we would be fine because our standards are far lower, so the stress on the environment is far lower. Now, if we all lived in houses and first world standards, all 7 billion of us with TVs and fresh water, that is not fine because it is not possible. You have to look at how much we consume as a population and not just at the rate of population growth.
Economically: Yes Ethically: No
[QUOTE=teslacoil;34038941]Instead of population control, why don't we work on colonizing other planets or moons?[/QUOTE] We are no where even close to colonizing other planets.
We can certainly pave the way for colonization, but it's a very long-term solution to a relatively short-term problem.
[QUOTE=garychencool;34035213]At 7 Billion people, it's a lot of people, most of which are in poverty to under the poverty line areas, countries, etc.[/QUOTE] But most of the world isn't below the poverty line. According to wikipedia and trickleup.org between 1.75 and 1.8 billion people are below the poverty line which is roughly 20% of the global population. This is the lowest global percentage of poverty since we started to record it and it is still decreasing. As was said in the oil thread, necessity is the mother of all innovation and so as the global population grows we discover more and more ways to sustain ourselves. [QUOTE=Ragy;34039021]We are no where even close to colonizing other planets.[/QUOTE] there should be a thread on this
[QUOTE=Ragy;34038995]All you did was link to a Wikipedia article about sub-replacement fertility. If you would have actually taken the time to read the thread you would have notice I specifically stated I was not claiming our world is overpopulated at this time, but rather in the future the demand for energy and raw resources will skyrocket to the point we will not be able to supply it.[/QUOTE] By that time we will most likely have new energy technology which is a much more practical and real solution than population control. Just so you know, we're pretty much in the maximum growth rate right now. It will be declining soon. We will level off below the earth's carrying capacity.
[QUOTE=teslacoil;34038941]Instead of population control, why don't we work on destroying other planets or moons?[/QUOTE] fixed
[QUOTE=Lazor;34038822]my "logic"? these are empirical facts, son [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility[/URL] you can't just look at the earth as a whole and be like "welp, guess we're over populated!" that's a gross oversimplification[/QUOTE] Kinda lost me with the link expecting it to fight your argument for you. That's a gross oversimplification. Anyways though, ever hear of a population crash? You let a population rise without limits (actually more like overshooting limits) for a while, it can tumble below the environments theoretical capacity instead of leveling out. Entire species can go extinct because of this if its bad enough.
Even though third-world countries have much higher birthrates we still consume much more resources than them. I don't think we need to do anything about population growth unless it actually becomes a serious problem.
[QUOTE=Str4fe;34034002]It is quite common sense, that when you have a half-full glass of beer, with 5% alcohol, and another half full glass with 10% alcohol, and if you pour that 10% one to the 5% one, you get one full glass with 7.5% alcohol. Its same with immigration and crime rates. [/QUOTE] are you drunk? serious question.
-[[B]REMOVED[/B]]
[QUOTE=Ragy;34033388] I personally believe in controlling the human population, as I would rather want our future generation to see the beauty of the world untouched and not starve for food or fight for resources. We as a species need to realize we are limited in what we can do and there are consequences for passing those lines. Every other living species on this planet is equal to us, we are too self-centered caring only about ourselves and what we wan't, regardless of the damage it will cause.[/QUOTE] it's got nothing to do with the size of the human population, we simply use too much without giving anything back out of greed. [editline]3rd January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Suff;34043601]one that has resulted in a very high unemployment rate, and even increasing Homeless rate. Job numbers have been declining, birth rates are climbing, and the Homeless rate is rising at a very quick rate.[/QUOTE] that's due to the economy, not to overpopulation.
Wars used to do a pretty good job at thinning the ranks. Instead of killing people and crazy shit like that, set up moon/mars/jupiters moon bases and space stations for people to live in. [editline]4th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=teslacoil;34038941]Instead of population control, why don't we work on colonizing other planets or moons?[/QUOTE] Herp derp missed this
[QUOTE=KommradKommisar;34043675]Wars used to do a pretty good job at thinning the ranks. Instead of killing people and crazy shit like that, set up moon/mars/jupiters moon bases and space stations for people to live in. [editline]4th January 2012[/editline] Herp derp missed this[/QUOTE] the wars themselves didn't keep population growth down until the 20th century (WWI and WWII). They just killed a large amount of the young men which meant the next generation was smaller.
I think nature will balance us out one way or the other. We needn't worry
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.