[Society] Overpopulation is the key to solving many problems (13)

1 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-12-09 15:41 ID:pLYa3JEc

In the midst of our ever westernised, post-modern lifestyles many issues that have been around for a while are starting to gain some attention. The environment, over-consumption, consumerism and it's relation with personal happiness just to name a few. In terms of finding solutions for these, the answers are good, but potentially not good enough. I think a dramatic reduction in the world's population will solve many problems like these.

Am I talking about gas chambers for millions? No. But in the next 50 years we will slowly start seeing the results that China's 1 child policy has caused, in a future time space where China's development may also be slowing down from it's current drive and maybe even run at a speed in line with it's population. It should also really be mentioned now that we are already starting to see depopulation occuring in many developed nations, as people marry later in their lives and have less children, however government chief bean counters are getting worried that less people around paying taxes will be problematic for the baby-boomer generations retiring in 15-30 years time. Currently the contributing factor towards Europe's population increase appears to be from immigration, predominantly from outside of the EU, namely African nations.

Is halving the world's population over the space of say, 4-500 years not too much to ask? We went managed to double our population in the space of around 100 years, so I think that's generous.

2 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-12-09 15:58 ID:9HKfCYB1

I agree. Overpopulation is a serious issue. To do my part, I will only behaving one child, if any at all.

3 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-12-10 08:32 ID:jH0WG9Wo

Frankly, if the world is really serious about combating global warming, adapting China-like reproduction laws would probably be far more effective than any kind of Kyoto-like policy of greenhouse reductions.

I think it's an inevitable policy that should probably be considered sooner than later, especially in the developing world.

We also need to crush the energy imbalance between developing and industrialised world; by our current definitions, this means a massive increase in emissions, industrialisation, and food, and water requirements. The planet just can't keep up with those demands with our current population growth rates. We need to stop growing, and if we want to maintain our quality of life per-capita, we probably need to shrink as well.

Although who knows? Thomas Malthus In 1798 predicted we'd all starve to death due to the limitations of arithmetic food production increase. He couldn't have predicted the effects of the industrial revolution on food production, perhaps, we'll find a way to live with massively dense populations and not kill our planet at the same time.

4 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-12-10 15:22 ID:oLH90d6d

People could stop from telling me how many kids I'm allowed to have. That would be nice.

5 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-12-10 17:16 ID:9osS0QGO


Unfortunately, the world isn't nice. I believe this kind of policy shouldn't be a case of "we're telling you not to", but rather a case of "feel free to breed, but we're not helping you". The government should increase taxation for families with more than one child, or take away benefits etc.

6 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-12-11 00:21 ID:pLYa3JEc

But that's exactly the opposite to what many governments in developed nations are doing. In Australia at least, the government will pay you several thousand dollars if you have a child. And then the greater problem is in developing nations is that because of the rife amounts of corruption in many countries, topics like these wouldn't be addressed because it means a downsize, something developing nations may be reluctant to do, unless they chuck a coup or revolution or something equally as bonkers.

7 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-12-11 05:34 ID:jH0WG9Wo


In the US it would have trouble passing for the same reason abortion rights were first passed. Government impositions on personal reproductive rights are despised.

8 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-12-12 14:54 ID:oLH90d6d

Because it's an absurd concept. Same mentality as the "guilty until proven innocent" crap that pops up every once in a while

9 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-12-12 17:34 ID:Heaven

There are many things we take for granted that would be "absurd concepts" to people of other times or places. That's hardly an argument for or against anything.

10 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-12-14 00:46 ID:lb8amiHE

> many things we take for granted that would be "absurd concepts" to people of other times or places.
  • Playing golf on the moon
  • Selling bottled water
  • Segways
  • Genital Mutilation

11 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-12-14 11:44 ID:CkwP9wkD

I've always found US policy regarding reproduction to be completely unfair anyway. The working class and middle classes can't afford to have children because the costs are immense. Those that do risk it often find themselves perpetually in debt and forever broke. This is the punishment responsible working people get for having jobs and paying their own way through the world.

Meanwhile, if you're unemployed (or better yet, completely unemployable) and get knocked up, then the government pays for everything. There are entire stores in the ghetto here that sell nothing but "WIC" products (for non-US: these are "healthy" foods like milk, orange juice, and cheese paid for with government checks). That such businesses can pay their rent is testament to how pervasive the problem has become. Every baby mill on welfare gets additional benefits for each child they have (want a bigger TV? have another kid!). Then they ride on housing benefits (because the taxpayers' children can't share a bedroom) which drives up rent for everyone else.

We're breeding out the working and middle classes with the same welfare system initially designed to protect them. A whole new parasitic class is rapidly rising to dominance. All these children will ever see is their parent (there are rarely two) sitting at home doing nothing but collecting checks. How is this system any better or worse than mandating a limit on the number of children one (and especially THEY) can have? We would all be better off. Fewer resources to feed fewer mouths.

12 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-12-14 14:52 ID:lb8amiHE


I don't believe a single thing you've written.
Provide some proof of this situation, please.

13 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-12-17 05:38 ID:pI9xMgjf

They're not rewarding breeding, they're supplementing a massive cost.

This thread has been closed. You cannot post in this thread any longer.