Human population control - Should this practice be enforced?
164 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;34044437]I think nature will balance us out one way or the other. We needn't worry[/QUOTE]
I think that nature will try to balance us out one way or another. But we completely fuck it up.
*No faith in the human race*
To all the people screaming "Colonize the moon an jupiter and build huge space stations :buddy: !".
Humanity can barely keep resources flowing and keep in check on a planetary scale. That along with the fact we are still divided into nations, corporations, and various other things.
We don't need a "Chinese moon crisis 2042"
I think your question is already being answered by the current situation. Famine, drought and AIDS account for millions of deaths. Perhaps it is the nature and means of population growth control which is in question, not it's existence. If people are already dying because they don't have access to food and water then this is sadly acting as a population control. War is another unfortunate form of population control which is efficient, killing two birds with one stone: limiting the population and freeing up new resources. Hence why we tend to fight in countries where we have other interests, as well as a 'moral' obligation.
Several people have stated that there are no problems or evidence of them. If you are of that opinion my friend, then you clearly don't want to be bothered by all this, your normal routine and way of thinking suits you fine and Google has identified that. Thus you are safely guided to search options which are tailored to suit your wilful or accidental ignorance. In all likelihood our corporate apathy towards intervention will perpetuate until we are beyond the window of opportunity to control matters on favourable terms.
Mother earth won't die. We are mother earth and we might die, but we are part of an ever-changing world and universe. We represent a portion of the universe that is conscious of its existence in the wider context and capable of rational thought; equally capable of being irrational.
[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 trying to say that people from countries with higher crime rates bring that crime rate with them when they immigrate
Because that's, you know, wholly wrong, and I think you should check your definition of common sense
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34033413]It's virtually impossible to do without breaching human rights so sadly no.[/QUOTE]
Ah, universal human rights you mean?
I think birth control to one per woman isn't that bad. It takes two people to make one child so the population of the world could easily be halved after 100 years.
[QUOTE=Haloscott3;34059638]I think birth control to one per woman isn't that bad. It takes two people to make one child so the population of the world could easily be halved after 100 years.[/QUOTE]
In theory its not that bad but when you start taking away accidental children from mothers, having parents murdering first borns because they aren't the right sex and forcing people to have abortions, things start to look a little bit bleak.
[editline]5th January 2012[/editline]
Also it is pretty bad and a massive infringement of rights.
[QUOTE=Lazor;34038073]lmao yes let's have population control even though population growth naturally declines in pretty much every developed country[/QUOTE]
Right. Most population growth occurs in places like Africa or India. But since they aren't as developed, they use far fewer resources than the average American or European.
Any population control should be used in developing countries if at all.
At the very least, birth control should be promoted there.
I'm also cool with the one child per family rule that China had. I don't see why people would want more kids than that. I don't even want kids; they're overrated.
[editline]5th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=squids_eye;34063246]In theory its not that bad but when you start taking away accidental children from mothers, having parents murdering first borns because they aren't the right sex and forcing people to have abortions, things start to look a little bit bleak.
[editline]5th January 2012[/editline]
Also it is pretty bad and a massive infringement of rights.[/QUOTE]
Oh duh, I forgot about how in China they have a huge gender imbalance since nobody wanted girls.
Maybe two children per family would work better and keep the population constant.
[editline]5th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=wizard`;34044392]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.[/QUOTE]
WW2 didn't cause the next generation to be smaller. That's where the baby boomers came from.
There is so much unused land all over the world.
[QUOTE=Crpto2007;34066557]There is so much unused land all over the world.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but very little of that is land we can actually live on.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;34066969]fix the shitty infrastructure of most modern places to be able to double the living areas in size[/QUOTE]
That's not even a possibility. The government has no control to alter private property and neither is anyone going to spend hundreds of thousands to millions altering or rebuilding their building(s). The only way that is possible is over decades to centuries after infrastructure eventually wears out or to build a whole new city.
So Malthusian in this thread.
I would say that the world would be able to support population growth like those on those charts if we manage to decrease the average standard of living. Not exactly caves, but poverty will probably creep up, and we'll have to ration our resources eventually. Nothing too lethal, people may start dying earlier.
i'm surprised nobody has mentioned that China already has a 1 baby per couple for about 30% of their population, so to a degree, it's already started.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy[/url]
[QUOTE=Ragy;34033388]I personally believe in controlling the human population[/QUOTE]
Good idea. You go first.
[QUOTE=A Glitch;34068413]i'm surprised nobody has mentioned that China already has a 1 baby per couple for about 30% of their population, so to a degree, it's already started.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy[/url][/QUOTE]
people have, read the thread more carefully.
I feel that there be some sort of intelligence test in order to be eligible to have children. Just like when an immigrant wishes to become a citizen in a country, they most likely need to take a test about the country.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;34063980]
WW2 didn't cause the next generation to be smaller. That's where the baby boomers came from.[/QUOTE]
No.
You might not remember from your throne of [I]perceived superiority[/I] over in the United States but WWII decimated the male population of tons of places. Russia for example? There was no baby boom in eastern Europe that's for sure. It was very different for the European countries as they were actually fighting on a much larger scale than the US and the ground campaigns were just massive. This is a war where the greatest tank battle in history occurred between the Germans and Russians where more than 3,600 tanks were involved. and 80% of the Russian male population born in 1923 didn't survive the war. Where 1.6 million people died in the battle for Stalingrad.
Next time please think before assuming someone else is wrong.
[QUOTE=TH89;34068548]Good idea. You go first.[/QUOTE]
Quite a mature and insightful response.
[QUOTE=Str4fe;34033541]Sadly, i think human population should be controlled. Mass murder wouldnt really be nice, but make it so that a couple can only have one child. I know this is not working very well in china, but it might work elsewhere, or atleast slow population growth a LOT.[/QUOTE]
It actually worked out pretty well, if it was not enacted the population in China would be much higher. Its just now they're starting to relax the laws. The problem with it is that due to cultural issues, boys were prized more highly than girls (they carry the name, don't have to pay a dowry, etc.) so sometimes girls were killed so the parents could try for a boy without breaking the laws, leading to the girl shortage in China now.
But the cultural construction that boys are better than girls isn't just in China, its almost world wide, sans a few matriarchal tribal societies. If we enacted worldwide population control, the man/woman sex ratio phenomenon that is occurring in China would occur worldwide to a point that there are too few women for the number of men. If population control was to work out, we'd have to upheave centuries or millenia of male-dominated society (not sayings that's a bad thing, just that it would be unrealistic.)
Another reason why people have many children is to help with work, especially in agricultural areas. People in rural India have multiple kids for just this reason. You can't exactly ask someone to stop having kids when if they don't, they'll end up starving. Unless of course you feel that that would be another way to reduce worldwide population.
On the other hand there are countries such as Japan that actually have negative birth rates, such that there are fewer and fewer young people to take care of an ever increasing elderly population. In these cases they actually need to increase the number of children being born.
That's another problem with worldwide population control, not every country is the same; not every country is expanding at the same rate, if at all. It's a really complicated issue since it encompasses cultural, economic, and social issues. The only way I'd say population control would work is not forced sterilization or forced one child laws. While entirely optimistic and somewhat unrealistic, I feel that the best way go about it is just to educate and help people, both in terms of sexual health and education, and general education.
In addition to NASA's budget cuts, NASA has already show us what would go on up there...
Not much productivity...
By 2050 every area besides africa will decline in population growth.
so no, plus that's breaching human rights or something
I don't understand why this is a question, none of us are even from a country with an unsustainable growth rate.
What you need to do is take care of the stupid people. Those are the people who overbreed, and lower average IQ.
Take safety labels off of EVERYTHING. Problem will solve itself.
Boom, 2 birds with 1 stone.
[QUOTE=SlicedBread;34082711]What you need to do is take care of the stupid people. Those are the people who overbreed, and lower average IQ.
Take safety labels off of EVERYTHING. Problem will solve itself.
Boom, 2 birds with 1 stone.[/QUOTE]
So true! I think there needs to be a heavier focus on teaching about teaching. While children are still naive and exploitable, brainwash them into thinking that education is do or die.
so much sociopathy
Right now it isn't needed, but I could see it being necessary in the far future.
[QUOTE=Bawbag;34037906]Simple. Remove all state funding from people who have more than 3 kids. Encourage contraception.[/QUOTE]
only rich people can have lots of babies
brilliant
The Malthusian Dilemma is incorrect. The population is already starting to decrease in growth, like others have already said. And there are more than enough resources and land to support any number of billions of people. The world right now is quite empty in many places (not even counting inhospitable places such as deserts or frozen areas).
One Billion People in just 10 years, come the fuck on. i say we just teach EVERYONE( no matter religion, culture, anything at all, if don't have genitals at all you still have to learn) about birth control and get the fuck going on making sure everyone has reliable access to it. Now that doesn't seen right from an economic stand point, but it has to cost less the a billion people every other week or something on the tiny fucking rock.
Fuck the whole contraception bullshit.
[highlight]OVER POPULATION IS A NON-ISSUE![/highlight]
The current carrying capacity for Earth is 10 billion people, birth rates in a lot of first world countries is dropping off to a point where it will level out and our populations will remain fairly constant for the most part.
The only issue we have is tragic resource management, we could easily produce enough food for people if we actually done things intelligently and properly recycled shit among other things.
I'll repeat it again for anyone popping wood over their dystopian fantasies.
[B]EVERYTHING WILL BE FINE.[/B]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.