I've been thinking about this a lot lately and I'm a little mad about over-population!

...Look at the amount of jobs available vs. the amount of unemployed people. There just aren't enough jobs. The cities are crowded, the small towns are becoming urbanized. Small countries are breaking out in to plague-scale diseases. We're having wars. This is all the symptoms of over-population. Here's my suggestions...

1) After a girl begins menstruating she should be put on birth control. No parent wants their little girl pregnant, so it wouldn't really be any violation. Then sex wouldn't be quite as huge a deal (I know that this might create a problem with younger sexual encounters and STDS but this is only a cure for over-population.). We could dispute civil rights, but I think everyone could be talked into considering the great effects it would have.

2) If someone wishes to have a child he/she would have to take a test. It would come in any language. They only way it would discriminate racially would be if a race is less intelligent than another, in which case the human race would be advancing or that race would need to study up. The questions on the test would have nothing to do with morals...they are disputable...but they would rather be on living condition, income, age, relationship with partner.

3) People would only be allowed to have 2 children. What do they really need more than that for? You could say for family income, but with the lessening population there would be more jobs available, better ones, and people would be in demand, which means wages would be higher. If someone had twins or multiples, fine...accident. But nobody really would have any need for more children than 2.

4) If someone went off the pill or had a child without consent they will go to jail, this is a serious issue. Their child will be given to a couple who qualifies but cannot have children. This will make everyone happy.

This view may sound extreme, but the situation is extreme at this point in time. SARS, AIDS, whatever wars are going on or in the making....we need to act...and the main cause of these diseases and world tragedies is over-population, it affects everything.

Your restrictions sound like something out of a future sci-fi novel right now, but I can definitely see something like that happening. In China I don't think there are any actual laws prohibitting a couple from having more than two children, but I do think that those who do are looked down upon and don't have as many oppurtunities for job advancement. That's just one step in the direction of greater restrictions.

Originally posted by DarkEyedBeauty

...Look at the amount of jobs available vs. the amount of unemployed people. There just aren't enough jobs. The cities are crowded, the small towns are becoming urbanized. Small countries are breaking out in to plague-scale diseases. We're having wars. This is all the symptoms of over-population. Here's my suggestions...


you are assuming unempoyed people are parasites and employment is the holy grail to happiness and fulfilment.

why don't you just execute everybody without a job? Isn't that much simpler than all those other rules you mention

Unemployment is not driven by population size. Humans work for humans.. More humans, more work. Increased human populations also contribute to a more enriched and varied workforce. To cater to a minority demand in a small population is uneconomical, but in larger populations it become profitable


why don't you just execute everybody without a job?
Once you do that all the people who are employed to help the unemployed will lose their jobs. Then once there all eliminated the executioners will lose their jobs and will have to kill them selves. Then because there is so many less people some business will no longer be profitable. So on and so one..
I know your not serious just making a point.


We're having wars.
We will have wars no matter how many humans there are.

Small countries are breaking out in to plague-scale diseases.
Not something new in human history. Increased human populations mean more resources to fight the “plague”. Also I don’t know of any plague-scale diseases since the 1918 pandemic. Once again plague or widespread disease is spread via trade, commerce and adventure. If no one traveled outside there home states we would never see a pandemic again.

SARS is just a media hype syndrome. It kills about 3-4% of people infected. Ebola virus kills 50% and is highly contagious yet it has not spread around the world.

AIDS is spread in uneducated populations via ignorance; population density has nothing to do with it. In Australia we have very low AIDS related deaths.

In my country population decline is a serious issue. We may soon have generous government rebates just by having children. It is a problem that is affecting most of the western world. Life has become so easy in our high density cities and towns that having children provide us with no real benefits (apart from love and family)

I do agree that so called third world counties do have problems. Their problems are not due to population it is due to culture.

Recent studies (I’ll have to get the ref latter) show that around 2050 human populations will start to decline.

I argue that population decline is the worst thing that could happen to humanity and we must do everything in our power to continue to increase population.

We owe it to mother earth to live on. We owe it to mother nature to leave earth behind and spread beyond her embrace and take the universe that has been given to us. To go into decline is to say we have had enough and we should just sit back and wait for our death.

but the problem is with what you have said, is that in a supposed free world those laws will infringe our civil liberties.

you have to remember what america is built on. your theories might be logical, but you would not be able to like put them though your congress.

so america has to get around what it is supposed to be based on and it will have to solve these problems in other ways, like my thread on the hiv virus.

it just would have been far more simply for the world if germany had won the war and the supposed freedoms of individuals were infringed on. instead countries like england and america won the war and now they have to find different ways to deal with this problem, without the public knowing they are being infringed.

but one thing that makes me laugh is that individuals would have a case for there civil liberties if the government upheld the things you say, but when the government infringes the peoples rights in other ways we don't have any rights at all, to ask about why our lifes are being infringed.

4) If someone went off the pill or had a child without consent they will go to jail, this is a serious issue. Their child will be given to a couple who qualifies but cannot have children. This will make everyone happy.


You are joking right?...i mean seriously....your logic cannot be this innane. How will that possibly make anyone happy. I can see that you haven't had any childern yet because no mother would ever even consider such a regulation to be forced upon society of any intelligence or race.


BTW...no race is smarter than the other. Every race has it's "dolts" and "it's do wonders". Plus those options you have posted there are just too strict to be taken seriously though sadly enough i could see some of them being employed in the future. Instead of treating the problem to bring relief why not cure it. Teach people about birth control and child bearing burdens, people in thrid world countries need to know this, they need to get over their ignorance.

You cannot make the world better through restrictions because as you can see they only condone opposite behavior but rather try to make itr better through knowledge....*sigh* sadly enough that doesn't seem to be working either.

Well no, I'm not entirely serious. The reason that I even throw these suggestions out there is because they are in my head and I hasn't been working in our country to teach people children about safe sex and parenthood. I, personally, have no intention of having children. So I would have no problem enforcing these rules. As far as I'm concerned I could have a hysterectomy tomorrow and I'd be fine. But the population does need to be controlled, and thus far nothing has worked. I hope it never comes to this. But I don't want to die in a world packed with people/full of diseases.

DarkEyedBeauty (are you really?) - I agree with your aims but not your methods. Anyone who can come up with an acceptable way of reducing human population would be doing the world a service.

Blindman - The only reasons declining populations cause problems are economic ones. Population growth generates economic growth, and of course we must have that year on year on year on year. The idea that we should always try to increase our population is absurd unless you want to live in a mean world that just has humans and human artefacts in it, (as so many city-dwellers already have to).

Originally posted by DarkEyedBeauty
I, personally, have no intention of having children. So I would have no problem enforcing these



WOW, aren't you the greatest human being ever. I would like to ask you...Do you read what you put down?:rolleyes:


And yes i agree that sex education isn't working in school because it isn't informative at all. The reason are the parents; even if a school did decide to go beyond the norms and stretch it's arm into more conterversial matters regarding sexual education the parents would be at a up roar in PTA meetings. So we cannot balme the schools. It's a parents job to monitor your kids and teach them about the pros and cons of sex.

The problem of over population isn't the worlds problem it is infact a problem of a choice few countries. India and China are the two leaders in producing offspring. Europe is rather under populated. These countires need to focus on educating their population on the dangers of over copulating. I believe China already takes drastic steps in order to control their population as for India; well it has only begun doing so and i might add the results are sorely disappointing.

darkeyedbeauty, you are a blind-eyed-thinks-he's-beauty

the world is overpopulated, but a restriction on life is stupid. Education is the influence that would be humanitarian, rules about sending people to jail for having kids and forcing your stupid single-minded ideas will not only never happen, but makes you come off as a complete ignoramous. You rank people by their employment status, and you think by being overly harsh and concrete without bending is the only way to solve the problem. This is what dictators do. You really need to quit being so closed minded and open your eyes for once.

Yes I agree that the worlds population is getting out of control. Blindman said that the best thing for the world would be increase in population. Its true that more people means more need, means more jobs to meet that need. But why the hell do we need more need? To make more jobs?

Now noone usually thinks about whether more people would be employed with more population or with less. And actually thinking about it myself - I don't know.

I think about it this way: the less people we have, the more resources there is per person. And though people might say that material wealth doesn't make people happy, it does. People wouldn't have to worry as much about finding jobs, keeping jobs, getting things - and they can focus on the finer things in life, instead of just surviving.

I think some better methods for this would be:

1. give people tax breaks for having 1 or 2 children, but give them tax increases for having more children than that. Then people can have their children, but they pay the community for what they take from it.

2. Get childrens tubes tied at birth. This way, people can't HAVE accidental pregnacies, and people would have to go to more trouble to have children. They would go to a doctor and have a small procedure. The reporductive material could also be tested for gross defects so that we don't have any retarded or misformed children.

Originally posted by Frencheneesz


2. Get childrens tubes tied at birth. This way, people can't HAVE accidental pregnacies, and people would have to go to more trouble to have children. They would go to a doctor and have a small procedure. The reporductive material could also be tested for gross defects so that we don't have any retarded or misformed children.


OMG:rolleyes: ..Do you hear yourself or rather read yourself...you are doing the same thing darkeyedbeauty is doing; trying to enforce linear ideas to a situation that is anything but. You want to give newborns a historectomy as soon as they are born!!! i mean really. Besides being dangerous, it is mundane and just a deluded idea. You are basically taking away a childs huge right with out it's consent and input...geez the thing can't even think of it self at that point. I think you meant that get parents tubes tied after having a childerns birth. Either way it is a choice you can't make for people but rather educate them on the dangers of overpopulation.

What do we hold more important? "Civil liberties"/traditional beliefs or the longevity of our species?
You can't have both.
Surprisingly the majority would pick the former and thats why humans aren't going to reach any milestones in the evolutionary sense.
Someone mentioned congress wouldn't accept any drastic changes and they are right, thats why congress needs to be overthrown. The whole system the free world works on would have to be completely revamped for the problem of over-population to ever be remedied.
This is not going to happen, so humans are going down before their first birthday.

Somewhere around the year 598 000AD would have been our first birthday as a species, and would have been a requirement for not being considered the least successful species in history.

"Besides being dangerous"

How dangerous is it?

"it is mundane and just a deluded idea."

Uhh.. do you know what mundane means?

"You are basically taking away a childs huge right with out it's consent and input"

Really now. Children don't have rights. Children can be searched without probable cause in school. Children get their penises chiseled without their consent. Children have to follow adults orders. Children are powerless.

"I think you meant that get parents tubes tied after having a childerns birth."

I assure you, I did not.

"Either way it is a choice you can't make for people but rather educate them on the dangers of overpopulation."

In any case, I think the tax idea would help just as much or more. We get money instead of losing it from all those mandatory hystorectomies the governement would have to fund.

But anyways, what if we made it mandatory that every birth hospital would have their doctors tell the parents about giving their child a historectomy and that they will do it from government money. Does THAT take away their rights?

Ohh you make me so angry… Fascist evil.

When in Rome.. I chose to sterilize all people that think humans don’t have a right to exploit nature.

I think that people who think there is finite resources on this Earth are naïve. Life is a chemical reaction.. All life is reliant on natural energy sources most of which come from our sun.

Kill the ant before killing a human.(not that I advocate that).

Did you know that if you put all the ants in the world in a pile and weighed them and then weighed all the humans they would be about the same. So we kill all the ants. Thus the finite resources that you population fear mongers say is so critical will stretch just that little further.

Most of you have been sold the idea of population danger.. You put human life second to the environment. It sounds like the start of another fascist movement. How would you deal with counties that don’t want to stop growth? The idea of mandatory sterilization is just another name for genocide.

Most of you live comfortable lives in wealthy counties with high quality social services. For most of the world a child means hope.. A child creates a new source of income. A child protects ones future.

How about you all go out and live of the land.. Scratch the soil and find a meal, tell me what its like to be hungry most of the time. Tell me why I should not have a child or 5 or 6 so that we can be more productive.

I am not green and I don’t believe that we should keep the world wild.. The earth will become one great park with room for thousands of species. With population we will be forced to water the deserts, we will reclaim the sea. This is our world not natures…

I wish that the fascist belligerent losers who advocate population controls should be the first to be removed from our societies.

Put your money were your mouth is and volunteer to be sterilized.. Oh even better have you gut stapled so you don’t waist precious resources. I bet most of you are over weight, you greedy fat bastards.

A very angry Blindman.

Funny, I would consider you evil.
Or very misguided, no no evil is fairly accurate. When I see people with this "humans are superior to earth" attitude I consider them the equivalent of a rapist.
A rapist who feels he deserves the right to rape because he has the physical capability.
The planet's resources are most definately finite and I wish you lived long enough to feel the repurcussions of over population first hand.
It's not going to be pleasant.

Blindman-
I seriously can't tell if you are serious about this because I can't imagine anyone hinestly believing in the things you said.


Originally posted by Blindman
Most of you live comfortable lives in wealthy counties with high quality social services. For most of the world a child means hope.. A child creates a new source of income. A child protects ones future.
A child means hope?
So that means 8 children means 8 times the hope?
Hope for what, specifically?

A new source of income?
You mean as in child labor?
Do you really think that the income brought into a household would outweigh the cost of a child?
If a family of 3 were hungry, a family of 4 would be HUNGRIER.
If you can't afford to feed your children, having MORE children is neglectful and basically abusive.


Originally posted by Blindman
How about you all go out and live of the land.. Scratch the soil and find a meal, tell me what its like to be hungry most of the time. Tell me why I should not have a child or 5 or 6 so that we can be more productive.
More productive?
How?
I you are living off the land to support yourselves how would 4 or 5 more people help?
Similar to the above argument...
3 people can easliy gather/grow/hunt food for three people.
How would having more children make obtaining food easier?
More hands/more need.



Originally posted by Blindman
I am not green and I don’t believe that we should keep the world wild.. The earth will become one great park with room for thousands of species. With population we will be forced to water the deserts, we will reclaim the sea. This is our world not natures…

That just makes me sad.
Let's cement the whole world.
Who needs nature?
You should really learn more about wide-scale ecology.
For someone that is a proponent ofr bringing more people into the world you certainly have a selfish short-sighted view.
Do you not care what the world is like for all these children you want to bring into it?



Originally posted by Blindman
I think that people who think there is finite resources on this Earth are naïve. Life is a chemical reaction.. All life is reliant on natural energy sources most of which come from our sun.

It is not a question of the resources being finite.
It is a question of rate of consumption.
You have a pig that eats 5 pounds of food a day.
You have a 100 pound stockpile of food and a vegetable garden that generates 5 pounds of food a day.
With these restraints, can you support another pig?
Yes.
For a short period.
Eventually your stockpile will diminish, and you will have just enough food to support ONE pig.
Your garden is still generating food, but your pigs are eating it faster than it can be generated.

DrLou - I seem to be following you around agreeing with you. Blindman is well named and has clearly had the usual anthropomorphic indoctrination in the natural sciences. Unfortunately it is an increasingly common view in a human population that with each generation has less and less contact with the natural world.

Oh I'm not so sure his views are becoming more common, in fact I don't think there was such a thing as environmental awareness 50 years ago. Everyone used to agree that the planet was put there for people and they could do what they want to it and its other inhabitants.

Who says anyone has a right to anything? As I see it, we are all part of an unthinking nature that has no plan, no emotion, and no thought. So what we do is to make ourselves feel as good as possible for as much as possible.

By destroying what most people refer to as "nature", disregarding the fact that doing so would most likely destroy us as well, would lessen many peoples abilities to make themselves feel good. People like "nature", people use "nature", people are nature.

Blindmans says "neuter the genocidists!" because they are bad.
Blindman is a Zenocidist. Anyone know what that means? Lets neuter him.

"So we kill all the ants. Thus the finite resources that you population fear mongers say is so critical will stretch just that little further."

That has more impact than just freeing up resources.

"You put human life second to the environment."

No way man. Humans rule. But the environment is what sustains us. We are part of the environment, so if that goes, we go. Animals live on homeostatis.

"Tell me why I should not have a child or 5 or 6 so that we can be more productive. "

If you're hungry, all those screaming kids aren't going to help. Especially if the average life span is so small that you die before you can be supported by your kids for very long.

"Put your money were your mouth is and volunteer to be sterilized"

Obviously you missed the point. Everyone can still have kids and not overburden the population. People arent sterilized when they get a hysterectomy, it only hinders the process. You can still have it done, its just harder.

"I bet most of you are over weight, you greedy fat bastards."

Oh really? how much do YOU weigh, ass master? More people mean more people that need to eat, duh. If you have more people you have less food.

"I think that people who think there is finite resources on this Earth are naïve. "

If we have unlimited resources, then everything would be dirt cheap. Everybody would be rich, and there wouldn't be a problem. Even if we had unlimited resources, we can't get them fast enough. So even though they may be THERE, we can't get them all HERE. So in light of the industrial revolution, we can use machines to work for humans so we need less humans. Then when we have less humans, we have more weath to go around.

Frencheneesez your reply was utterly stupid. What if you were sterlized as soon as you were born and told at a later point in your life...Let's say 21 that you couldn't have kids because you had that option axed for you without your permission....how would you feel? What i am saying is; that taking away that right isn't anybody else's choice but that childs. How can you in good conscience sterilize a child in fear that he/she MAY have accidental pregnancy...MAY have one. How about pushing support for contrasceptives instead of neutering a child.....or abortion. Sex education doesn't seem to work but your proposed methods are... well in a way methodical. Also how do you decide who gets sterilzed or not?...i mean surely you couldn't be suggesting doing that to all the newborns....even you could not be that blindsided to the consequenses of those actions.


Now probably someone will come along and say ..."hey why not have a war every 10 years or so to balance out the population....gee gosh it sounds dandy to me" :rolleyes: .


Also why worry...at the rate we are going we will kill ourselves in about 40 years or so anyway:D

I dont think the world is overpopulated,just some parts of it like India or China,so when people have nothing to eat they'll die,especialy when they have half a ton of beef steak walk by and are not allowed to kill and eat it:rolleyes:
I think in China every family is allowed to have only one child.
North America(Canada) has so much open space that another few million people could fit here with no probs imo.
not enough work?
maybe we all should work 4 days week:D or less!

Originally posted by Q25
I dont think the world is overpopulated
Compared to what?:confused:

North America(Canada) has so much open space that another few million people could fit here with no probs imo.
Yeah, don't mind the bears and beavers, I don't think they like surviving anyway:rolleyes:
and if they do they can just get a job and rent an apartment like everyone else

"Frencheneesez your reply was utterly stupid. "

Good, good. Thats what I was going for. (no, not really!)

"What if you were sterlized "

NO GOD DAMNIT. For the last time, I'm not saying STERILIZE THEM! If you get your tubes tied, you still have semen and eggs where they are supposed to be. THEREFORE, you can have a simple procedure to extract some seman and a couple of eggs and put THOSE in the right place.

Once again, I'm not opting for any sterilization.

Um, I guess that the rest of your post is based on that premise so Ill wait for your next response...

"so when people have nothing to eat they'll die"

Or come to America... "Give us your hungry"

"I dont think the world is overpopulated,just some parts of it like India or China"

Or we could send them to the moon. Evolutionary selection would make a new race of humans that don't have to breath air! And then Jerry Springer can become president.

When there are too many people, we can still survive. But surviving on the bare minimum sucks ass

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
Oh I'm not so sure his views are becoming more common, in fact I don't think there was such a thing as environmental awareness 50 years ago. Everyone used to agree that the planet was put there for people and they could do what they want to it and its other inhabitants.
You're kidding, right? Or do you just mean a few Western intellectuals?

Originally posted by Canute
You're kidding, right? Or do you just mean a few Western intellectuals?

In the Western world conservation and environmental protection was basically unheard of in the mainstream consciuosness until Barnard Baruch came along, and since then it has only come and gone in waves.

Hell, look at the 80's!

IMO you're confusing caring about the environment with publicly fighting against its destruction. For instance you can hardly say that Americans care more now about the environment than native Americans did centuries ago. Also it's only since the dawn of the 'Age of Reason' and the industrial revolution based that followed from it that it's been under such obvious threat.

I was referring mostly to western civilisation.
Whose lack of environmental awareness stems from the bible IMHO.
Environmentalism only arose in the last 30 years and has strengthened. Not enough, but it is accepted by most that it is important. Many just don't realise how important.
Hopefully and maybe blindly optimistically scientific knowledge will make society in general realise how obviously the environment is the most important thing in the environment.
Without it(or any tiny aspect of it) there is nothing.

I realise native americans had envirnmental awareness and I see there slaughter as almost symbolic of the death of the american eco-system.

Once more.. It is not population that is the problem.

You all sound like you come from wealthy countries and don’t understand how the poor people of this world survive. They must work the land. They need their children to help work the land and more. I don’t know the limit of the perfect family size in these countries but usually your 6time better off if you have six times the workforce. They don’t have old peoples homes, so they must have someone to look after them as they age, and someone to work, and someone to look after the children.

Facts..
Average individual daily energy consumption
- in hunter-gatherer societies: 2500 calories
- current global average: 31,000 calories
- current US average: 186,000 calories

One “FAT” American is worth around 74 hunter-gatherers in the amount of food and energy consumed. The poorest of the poor still exist today.

Fact..
Population density of some of the top economic counties.
Population per square kilometer 2001.
Germany 230
Netherlands 381
Switzerland 173
United States of America 29
Japan 335
Canada 3
Australia 2

All these countries enjoy a high standard of living. There is absolutely no correlation between population density and standards of living across the world.

Population density of some of the poorest countries
Angola 10
Cameroon 31
Central African Republic 6
Chad 6
Congo 8
Gabon 5
Democratic Republic of the Congo 21
Afghanistan 34

Source
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D6319.xls
http://www.reliefweb.int/w/map.nsf/wByCLatest/1E4671FD9F2EC5C585256A9C004E2075?Opendocument

Once again Population growth and density have nothing to do with sustainability

To you bleeding heart environmentalists. Have you ever considered giving up your land back to the local natural environment? Do your ride your bike instead of burning energy. Would you consider reducing the energy intake of you and your children so as to give more to the environment?

One raven


A child means hope?
So that means 8 children means 8 times the hope?
Hope for what, specifically?
A new source of income?
You mean as in child labor?
Do you really think that the income brought into a household would outweigh the cost of a child?
If a family of 3 were hungry, a family of 4 would be HUNGRIER.
If you can't afford to feed your children, having MORE children is neglectful and basically abusive.

You see children as a burden because all you do to survive is make money and goto the local shop to feed them.. Most of the world population must work the land. Hope? hope that someone will work the land and feed you when you get to old to work or sick.
Do you realize that the US is one of the major importers of goods in the world. How many children work in other developing counties to keep your standard of living?

Dr Lou Natic

Funny, I would consider you evil.
The planet's resources are most definately finite.
If you’re talking about OIL maybe, but human survival is not dependent on OIL. WE are part of the food chain. Almost all the energy required by the food chain comes from the sun. When you eat you eat foods that have energy from the sun. The sun is not about to disappear. I ride my pushbike to work, shops and parties almost every were. The energy I use comes from the sun. Land derogation is what you may be talking about. Land derogation is not determined by population. Year by year we become more and more efficient at using the land. Production rates per hector are the highest it has ever been.

Canute
I was raised in one of the counties with the lowest population densities. I grew up surrounded by state forests. These are old growth forests, I have personally rescued many wild animals form highways and natural accidents. My land has only natural species of plants, it supports many species. Right now I have 3 birds nests, my land supports at least one snake several lizards, marsupials. I wake to the sound of cockatoos eating the seed from the many trees I have on my land. Oh my land only covers about 2000 square meters

Frencheneesz

Animals live on homeostatis.
homeostasis. Yep if you live in the US how can you say that? You are the exploiter. You do not consider damage to the environment when you eat your meal, drive your car and have children.
Also.. I have never been over weight. I exercise daily. As mentioned above One person from the US uses 74 time the energy required by a human.


I live in Australia. 60000-50000 years ago humans came to your land. They have survived in this land on very low population densities. ( under 1 per kms) yet it has cause major environmental changes. We lost all our mega fauna within 20000 years of human population. The environment was not destroyed, it was changed to protect humans.

FACT…
the new study suggested that nearly half the land on Earth is still wild.

POPULATION GROWTH IS NOT THE PROBLEM… get with the facts people.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
I was referring mostly to western civilisation.
Whose lack of environmental awareness stems from the bible IMHO.
Good point. The Bible and Aristotle-ism both raised humans above nature and reduced the world to inconsequential and dead matter. (Although I don't think either of them meant to do that).


[Environmentalism only arose in the last 30 years and has strengthened. Not enough, but it is accepted by most that it is important. [/B]
OK. But this simply depends on how you define 'environmentalism'.

Blindman - It seems you are one of the lucky ones. If you think population isn't a problem try finding a bit of space to live in in England. We've even abolished the laws protecting 'green belt' land in order to allow unrestricted urbanisation. IMO the current world population is not sustainable long term, never mind what it will become over the next century. This is conjecture of course.

BTW I'm sure we all understand the importance of having children. It's the population base from which we have them that is the issue, not the having of them. You must surely agree that there has to be some limit to human population if we are going to have any quality of life at all, we're just arguing about where the limit should be. Still, I suppose having 2000 acres in a sparsely populated Australia gives you a more rosy view than most.

I suppose having 2000 acres in a sparsely populated Australia
I said 2000 square meters. I live in the semi rural outer suburbs of an Australia city.

blindman has made the definitive post. it has always been management of resources that is the issue.

True enough if all you want is survival. However I don't believe sustainability is much of an issue. Quality of life (and not just human life) is the real issue IMO, and resources (and sustainability of resources) are only one of a number of issues in this regard.

so when people have nothing to eat they'll die,especialy when they have half a ton of beef steak walk by and are not allowed to kill and eat it:rolleyes:


ahhh blissfull ignorance:rolleyes:...please know of some customs and culture of the country you refer to before you make such statements.


maybe we all should work 4 days week:D or less!

Goddamn yes...amen to that.

<b>Canute</b>

You must surely agree that there has to be some limit to human population if we are going to have any quality of life at all, we're just arguing about where the limit should be
I think this thread started with a summery of ways to slow population grow. The approach was so belligerent and immoral that I have had to put my two and bit cents in.

I agree that there must be an upper limit to population numbers on earth. This limit is not fixed. What is an acceptable number today could be thrown out the window tomorrow.

I am hesitant to guess a number but in my view we are still along way of the upper limit.

I was taught at school that if population rates continued to rise at the present rate humans would out weigh the earth some time this century (cant remember exactly when). Something has to stop growth before then.

As I said earlier, the population of western societies is coming close to peeking and will start do decline in the next 50 years. As more and more counties enter a higher social standard of living they too will confront the same problem. Ill have to see a graph or numbers as to how individual states around the world are growing in respect to living standards.

I could give a number as to the self limiting max of human population. In other words what would the population of the earth be if everyone was so well of that they did not need to have children to live happily.

I think the question is. How can we maintain or standard of living?

My answer to that is Technology. Humans may well be the first species whose population does not fluctuate.

I’m just an Optimist. I love technology, personal freedom and the idea that all counties in the world will just be states of some world democratic government.

To the harsh statements I have made in past posts in this thread. I’m sorry I tend to use sarcasm as a way to explain my opinion. I would never what to harm or remove anyone..

Gezz now im just ranting.. Getting late so good night.

Originally posted by Q25
maybe we all should work 4 days week:D or less!

I do.
And I can tell you it is GREAT!! :D

Blindman

Fair enough. But I still object to a couple of points.

IMO it is a mistake to muddle standard of living with quality of life. The first is about wealth, the second less so (possibly hardly at all so).

Also your argument about increasing wealth solving the population problem is shaky. Societies in whch the birthrate is falling are often those in which material standards of living are already unsustainable long term. In other words the birthrate drops off too late to solve the problem.

Also democracy on large scales become tyrannies. A world democracy would be a police state (as the evidence of increasing limits to our individual freedom suggests). It is a mistake to imagine that in the democracies of the US or the UK people are more free than anywhere else. They are just more free in certain particular respects. The more 'free' US version is not the kind of freedom I ( and many others) would want, and it would often be better named irresponsibility or thoughtlessness in many respects.

Must go now and get my eighteen children to school.

u know what butterfly....if that ever was going to happend......then i wud problly kill my self i mean now were gonna get reated like robots?

Canute

I don’t remember mentioning wealth. Your standard of living has nothing to do with wealth. A poor man in Australia is a rich man in India. The best time I had in my life ended about 6 years ago. I lived on social security and had a phat time for four years (yet I was amongst the poorest in the state). I then got to a stage were I decided to plan for my future retirement. I purchase some land and educated my self.

I have a high standard of living because if I get sick I can go to the hospital for free. If im to stupid or unwilling to work the government will supports me . When I want to improve my self there are many options, most of which only require commitment not money and are government funded..

There are very few countries that live in your so called police state. Even the US is so far from a police state the it is preposterous to think so.

In Australia we have a clear definition between state and federal governments. We have a modern and fair constitution. The states have right to enforce their own laws in respect to local customs, excreta.

The constitution guaranties that a tyrant could not possible survive without the consent of the states and its peoples. We elect both state and federal members, it is mandatory to vote for both federal and state elections ( I should know ive been fined for not voting as a young lad).
The state I live in produces more then 30% of my countries wealth. (we have 6 states and two territories), there is occasional talk of succession but we all know it is better to work as a whole then to divide.
We need to define a global constitution. The UN’s human rights carter is a good starting point. We need equality in trade and finance, we need methods of resolving arguments between states/ countries. We need to share the global wealth and stamp out corruption.

It may be in the form of a three-tiered government. Local state government, Federal country government, and finally global government. The UN is almost there but there is no agreed constitution. Currently the global court is not governed by the people of the world but by the power countries of the world. I seek to change that and give the right to every human to vote for a global government. A global law outlining the fundamental rights of humans and countries, the right of states and the rights of individuals.

The will always be a lose of freedom, it is part of living in a society.

We now live in a times of war.

My country has never had a war except for helping other countries, we have never had a civil war. We are one of the most peaceful countries in the world. If all the world could be in harmony as the states of Australia it would be a happy world..

Apart from what I have just said I am a nationalist, yet there is room for that in a global society.

Don’t be greedy..

Well I think Im totally of this threads line… opps just cant stop typing…

i wish i could find the thread to give credit but if you look for something titled, "picture of the globe, world, earth" there's a picture of the earth from space that shows the lights all over the planet. Its scary. But it leads me to my next point.

The lights are in bushels, if you will. There is a large one (which I am a part of ) around the great lakes.
_____________________________________________
Perhaps it is distribution that is the real monster behind over-population.

There are botanical advancements :m: being made every day that would allow plants to grow in extreme temperatures by using less water. Plus, converting salt water into drinking water would be a great help as well.

Perhaps we will eventually eveolve, or find a way technologically for humans to inhabit the North and South poles or the deserts.

Spread out the people - spread out the jobs
___________________________________________

Unfortunately there is way too much contraversy over contraceptives to implement your idea (Dark eyed Beauty)

China, well, they really didn't have a choice. And look at all of the incredible and horrible downsides to the One Child Policy:
-inhumane abortions
-OVER POPULATION of females in orphanages
-emmigration - forcing those who disagree with this policy to leave their country and breed elsewhere (also affects distribution)

______________________________________________

Originally posted by Blindman
The approach was so belligerent and immoral that I have had to put my two and bit cents in.

this thread is cool compared to others with the same topic. the butchers and mad eugenicists come crawling out of the woodwork. (the darkies get slaughtered!)

:D




Originally posted by Blindman
My country has never had a war except for helping other countries, we have never had a civil war. We are one of the most peaceful countries in the world. If all the world could be in harmony as the states of Australia it would be a happy world..

what is that all about? :) you do know your history yes?

Australians understand only the stereotypical or traditional scenes of historical or present-day slaughter. For them, genocide connotes either the bulldozed corpses at Belsen or the serried rows of Cambodian skulls, the panga-wielding Hutu in pursuit of Tutsi victims or the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia. As Australians see it, patently we cannot be connected to, or with, the stereotypes of Swastika-wearing SS psychopaths, or crazed black tribal Africans. Apart from Australia's physical killing era, there are doubtless differences between what these perpetrators did and what we did in assimilating people and removing their children. But, as we will see, we are connected - by virtue of what Raimond Gaita calls "the inexpungable moral dimension" inherent in genocide, whatever its forms or actions

http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/rsrch/rsrch_dp/genocide.htm

hilarious (http://www.aboriginalgenocide.com.au/whitecourt.html)

Originally posted by Blindman
I don’t remember mentioning wealth. Your standard of living has nothing to do with wealth.
If you say so. But most other people consider these to be directly connected.


I have a high standard of living because if I get sick I can go to the hospital for free. If im to stupid or unwilling to work the government will supports me . When I want to improve my self there are many options, most of which only require commitment not money and are government funded..[/B]
Quite. And how do you think your governent can afford to give you this high standard of living except by continuing economic growth?


There are very few countries that live in your so called police state. Even the US is so far from a police state the it is preposterous to think so.[/B]
I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I was talking about where your proposal would take us. I certainly did not say that the US is a police state (although it is in one qualitative sense, since in less economically high-powered states there are less police). I was talking about the 'tyranny of the majority and the increasing necessity of making people conform as our democratic societies become increasingly larger and more rigidly organised. You must admit that the 'War on Terrorism' has excused a very worrying increase in social control, and such controls are never withdrawn, only built on further.


In Australia we have a clear definition between state and federal governments. We have a modern and fair constitution. The states have right to enforce their own laws in respect to local customs, excreta. The constitution guaranties that a tyrant could not possible survive without the consent of the states and its peoples. [/B]
Tyranny of the majority is what I'm talking about, not dictatorships. As democracies pass a certain size the ability of the individual to change society disappears. Increasingly we must just do what we're told by the majority, who are always right of course. Hence the bigger the democracy the lower the voting turnout. And IMO it's not much of a democracy that needs to enforce voting by law. Why the hell should you vote if you don't want to, not voting is a very valid choice when all the options are unwanted.


[The state I live in produces more then 30% of my countries wealth. (we have 6 states and two territories), there is occasional talk of succession but we all know it is better to work as a whole then to divide. [/B]
This explains your high standard of living.


We need to define a global constitution. [/B]
No we don't. I do not share your enthusiasm for planned and written constitutions. One reason the English constitution has worked so well is that is it largely unwritten and has thus been able to evolve according to need, and expert opinion remains divided on whether more of it should be ossified in writing.


[The will always be a lose of freedom, it is part of living in a society.[/B]
My very point. And as society becomes ever more intricately structured and necessary to the maintenance of our increasing standards of living so the freedoms will continue to disappear.


We now live in times of war.[/B]
Well hardly.


[My country has never had a war except for helping other countries, we have never had a civil war. We are one of the most peaceful countries in the world. If all the world could be in harmony as the states of Australia it would be a happy world..[/B]
I think Spookz covers this.

[Don’t be greedy..[/B]
Um - OK

Sorry spookz you’re absolutely right. There are dark times in this counties history.

What you must remember is that during the 50’s to the early 70’s Australia had an open door policy to immigration. We let in millions of people from all over the world. I am only a first generation Australia and still carry some of my Dutch heritage. Thusly it is difficult to connect to the past history of Australia. There are millions of first and second generation Australians who don’t seem to feel guilty for the policies of this countries founders and creators.

I would retract the statement if I could.

Canute

Quite. And how do you think your governent can afford to give you this high standard of living except by continuing economic growth?
Exactly..

More to say latter, must do some real work now..

Ok I think I'd like to clear a couple things up:

First: WE DO NOT HAVE DEMOCRACIES! By the REAL definition of the word, a democracy has not existed for a couple thousand years. All of our "democracies" are Straight republics. People only vote on actual laws to be passed rarely, and only on the community level.

Somone mentioned marking a number for maximum ideal carrying capacity of the world. However they were tenative to do so because they can't see that far ahead. My response is: why don't we set a limit now and change it when we see the need? Duh

ALSO, I agree that we need a world constitution and world government. But somepeople don't understand that CONSTITUTIONS CAN BE CHANGED. In fact, the US constitution originally planed to have a constitutional convention every so often to change it to the times, however, it got vetoed and so we don't get that chance anymore.

A world constitution would not be extensive, and would not be all that restrictive. It would only define how we resolve international problems. Nothing more.

" expert opinion remains divided on whether more of it should be ossified in writing."

What the hell good does a constitution do, if its not in writing? (hey suicide is now legal, pass it on)

I really don't think forcing people to vote is a good idea. Then the vote will be skewed by people who vote randomly to save time. I can think of some ways that it WOULD work to force people to vote, but how does austrailia do it Blindman?

ANYWAY, back to the main premise. Why does everyone think it is so bad to make humans have to go through a medical process to get pregnant? huh? And whats so bad about bias taxes? We tax tobacco because that hurts us (and its a luxery, not the point). We should tax for children because more of them hurts us. Duh. Even if they are taxed and hystorectimied (sp), they still have the right to have as many kids as they want and can. They will just have to pay for it, in cash

I really don't think forcing people to vote is a good idea. Then the vote will be skewed by people who vote randomly to save time. I can think of some ways that it WOULD work to force people to vote, but how does austrailia do it Blindman?

In Australia we are punished via a fine, I think was about $60AUS (around $30US). Not much but it made me go and vote the next time.

It may be true that people will give a donkey vote, especially if you’re not to keen, or not in touch. But once inside the booth most people will know what they want, they may not vote for anyone specific by they certainly vote against what they don’t like.

I think that in counties where it is not compulsory to vote, it can lead to inadequate representation of minorities. Especially the poor and ethnic groups.

Canute <I> standard of living and wealth </I>

But most other people consider these to be directly connected.
Whose wealth, yours? Your neighbors? Local council? The state? The republic?
What if you’re denied the goods and services what good would wealth be.
How do you quantify love and happiness in terms of wealth?
If I work hard in a repetitive unfulfilling job and make twice as much as someone with a creative fulfilling job. Who has the better standard of living?

I have been too a place where the communities income would be less then the average professional worker. Yet we enjoyed a great life style, food literally threw its self at you, the people were very well feed and most of all, were very happy. We stayed there for 4 weeks and were not once ask for money. We were expected to work, not that I would have called it work. No one complained, no one rushed. Even in sickness their culture had prepared them. A sick old woman was dieing. We were stressed and offered help to bring her to a modern hospital. She declined (oh no tears in my eyes) with her family all around she would rather die then leave them. She died several days after we left. Im glad we never sent her away.

Now who has the better standard of living? Next time your out on the freeway moving at 2 miles an hour look around you and see how many happy faces you see.

Standard of living is governed by expectation not wealth.

Frencheneesz - good points and overall I agree with you. Especially:

Originally posted by Frencheneesz
Somone mentioned marking a number for maximum ideal carrying capacity of the world. However they were tenative to do so because they can't see that far ahead. My response is: why don't we set a limit now and change it when we see the need? Duh
But no - apparently we must wait for the utopia that technology will soon impose on us.

[ALSO, I agree that we need a world constitution and world government. But somepeople don't understand that CONSTITUTIONS CAN BE CHANGED. In fact, the US constitution originally planed to have a constitutional convention every so often to change it to the times, however, it got vetoed and so we don't get that chance anymore.[/B]
Good point. This is why it evolves better when (to some degree) it is unwritten, thus English law evolves (to some degree) by practice and precedent in response to changing circumstances and as informed by expert practice rather than simply political process.

A world constitution would not be extensive, and would not be all that restrictive. It would only define how we resolve international problems. Nothing more.[/B]
By that meaning I'd be all for one (mostly unwritten of course)

What the hell good does a constitution do, if its not in writing? (hey suicide is now legal, pass it on) [/B]
The same thing as a written one, but based on precedent and practice, with the possibility of change at any moment (say in some particular legal case at the discretion of the courts).

Blindman - I don't understand you position. You agreed with me that your standard of living depended on economic wealth. Yet you disagreed when I connected standard of living with economic wealth. I'll restate my point - standard of living is not the same as quality of life (in normal usage of the words). One depends wholly on economic wealth (the 'standard' which is commonly measured) and one does not (beyond being able to subsist).

<b><i>Canute</i></b>
I do not make my statement lightly.

Are you talking about standard of living. Or “standard of living” as a financial indicator allowing investors to manage their risk?

Economic wealth. (Once again you will see a financial point to this).

Economies could be driven entirely but art. It is not the art traded that produces the wealth but the underlying society and culture that allows the growth of such art, that is where the economic value is.

Even if this, value of potential art, in terms of monetary value, is small to other economies, if the people are happy they have a high standard of living,
Thus high economic value, because security in the knowledge that maintenance of there culture can be sustained over the long term. (their not about to go bust).

I judge my security and happiness on my ability to sustain my life style. I chouse not to have a two story mansion overlooking the ocean. I chose to live in a less glamorous home. My standard of living (not financial) is just the same as the multi million dollar life style so hyped in the media.

Anyway for you (Canute) I will no long say standard of living.. Ill just call it the societal contentment factor(SCF).

This SCF must be a major component in the judging of human population control.

Constitution?? World constitution?? Law and the world legislative body??. Supreme court and world court how should they relate?. Think its time for a few new threads..

Blindman:

When people say, standard of living, they will most likely take it, not to mean the litteral meaning, but to be connected to the phrase that is constructed as such. Standard of living defined be the dictionary is measured by the amount of material wealth that an average person has. Quality of life, while litterally meaning the same thing, is almost completely based on opinion of what a good life is, and the happieness of a person.

Therefore quality of life has a correlation, but not a completely dependant connection with "standard of living". ok?

sorry this thread is completely off base, but noone seems to be discussing the topic. Weeehhhh do we really have to start a new thread?

BTW. How do you fairly enforce an unwritten law?

Originally posted by Blindman
Unemployment is not driven by population size. Humans work for humans.. More humans, more work. Increased human populations also contribute to a more enriched and varied workforce. To cater to a minority demand in a small population is uneconomical, but in larger populations it become profitable


Once you do that all the people who are employed to help the unemployed will lose their jobs. Then once there all eliminated the executioners will lose their jobs and will have to kill them selves. Then because there is so many less people some business will no longer be profitable. So on and so one..
I know your not serious just making a point.


We will have wars no matter how many humans there are.

Not something new in human history. Increased human populations mean more resources to fight the “plague”. Also I don’t know of any plague-scale diseases since the 1918 pandemic. Once again plague or widespread disease is spread via trade, commerce and adventure. If no one traveled outside there home states we would never see a pandemic again.

SARS is just a media hype syndrome. It kills about 3-4% of people infected. Ebola virus kills 50% and is highly contagious yet it has not spread around the world.

AIDS is spread in uneducated populations via ignorance; population density has nothing to do with it. In Australia we have very low AIDS related deaths.

In my country population decline is a serious issue. We may soon have generous government rebates just by having children. It is a problem that is affecting most of the western world. Life has become so easy in our high density cities and towns that having children provide us with no real benefits (apart from love and family)

I do agree that so called third world counties do have problems. Their problems are not due to population it is due to culture.

Recent studies (I’ll have to get the ref latter) show that around 2050 human populations will start to decline.

I argue that population decline is the worst thing that could happen to humanity and we must do everything in our power to continue to increase population.

We owe it to mother earth to live on. We owe it to mother nature to leave earth behind and spread beyond her embrace and take the universe that has been given to us. To go into decline is to say we have had enough and we should just sit back and wait for our death.

It looks different in America. No jobs, lack of housing, traffic jams, long lines.

If there is no surplus of people, why are there no jobs?

olaus:

please don't copy so frikking much of someones post, especially when you can't even match 3% of the length.

BTW, hes saying that less people would mean even LESS jobs due to lack of need destroying more jobs than the lack of people open up. I don't agree, however.

Maybe they should euthanize all americans because they are the greatest poluters in the world.

Then we should 'sacrifice' all the germans because they eat too many saugages.

The french are next since they smell like garlic.

Politicians will be hanged because they lie too much.

Executioners will be executed because they kill too much.

People that post crap on forums will be castrated.

Never realized that solving problems was this easy.

Make an orderly queu please for the gas chambers...wait your turn...

great spuriousmonkey, you addressed the entirely wrong issue. If you read other peoples posts, noone advocated killing anybody, unless you consider a fetus a body...

its not.

Originally posted by Frencheneesz
great spuriousmonkey, you addressed the entirely wrong issue. If you read other peoples posts, noone advocated killing anybody, unless you consider a fetus a body...

its not.

sorry, confused some theads then...but lets kill all of them anyway.

Um, excuse me... I most definately was advocating killing people:mad:

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
Um, excuse me... I most definately was advocating killing people:mad:

This could be an interesting example of the 'invisible poster' syndrome. I have it myself. I somehow cannot notice any posts of specific forum members. And before you ask, I haven't blocked them. They are there, but I don't see them.

Apparently I did see the kill all people threads, but not the do not kill all people threads, whereas other contributors to this thread had the opposite problem.

It is one of those classic mysteries that can be classified in the same category as women are from venus, men are from mars.

Give people a contraceptive implant at puberty that wears off when they reach thirty. That would cut population growth down to size.

good ideas, they won't happen though, sorry. it's impossible to regulate these things and if we start to put laws on the number of children people can have the world will be a little more like CHina, and we don't want that now do we, i mean look how they turned out, they have SARS

sHaZbOk:

Um, no offense (maybe) but that was a stupid post. SARS had nothing to do with their population laws, and the US would be LESS like china's overpopulated peice of land if we had such laws.

I don't worry. Given time the human race will reach equilibrium. It won't be a pleasant state and will give us a really big reason to advance.

:bugeye: Clockwood, that's like seeing a wall coming up at you when you're driving your car at 60mph and saying "well, I don't mind - we'll have stopped after the crash and it'll teach me not to drive too fast"!

Equilibrate where? high population/ low populaiton/ somewhere in between? At the carrying capaciy of the land, or comfortably below it?

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
:bugeye: Clockwood, that's like seeing a wall coming up at you when you're driving your car at 60mph and saying "well, I don't mind - we'll have stopped after the crash and it'll teach me not to drive too fast"!

It will teach everybody ELSE not to drive too fast. It is probally the only way to get it through everybodys' heads. The species will survive it and come out better for the experience. (though there is going to be unimaginable suffering in the meantime) This may even give us a reason to get the heck off the planet.

I wont be alive during the worst of it so I am merely a spectator. My parents only had two children and I will only have two children so I am not making things worse.

Just move most of the people of Earth to another planet. Once I obtain some nukes and melt the polar caps, the sea level will raise 215 feet (according my calculations). Might as well plan ahead and save as many as possible. ;)

http://apesnature.homestead.com/files/FG06_002.JPG

However, another remarkable demographic transformation is underway. Worldwide, the total fertility rate is declining and a demographic transition is taking place. Total fertility rate is the average number of children that a woman has over her lifetime. Demographic transition is the term demographers use to describe the change a nation undergoes from experiencing high mortality rates and high death rates to low death rates and low birth rates. Most western industrialized nations began to undergo a demographic transition after the Industrial Revolution. Now evidence indicates that most developing nations are undergoing a similar transition. Almost every region, except Africa, has experienced a sharp decline in fertility rates; it appears that a decline in fertility is occurring in Africa as well. The worldwide total fertility rate was estimated to be 5 births per woman when total fertility rates peaked during the period from 1965 to 1970; it is now estimated at 2.7 births. A replacement fertility rate would be 2.1 birthsper woman, or one child to replace each parent (taking into account premature deaths). Almost half of the world's population lives in countries in which the fertility rate is below replacement rates. These below countries include not only Western developed nations, but developing countries such as China,Thailand, and Sri Lanka.

Population Dynamics (http://www.enviroliteracy.org/subcategory.php/30.html)

however...a big if..

If such low fertility persists, it may lead to declining population size, extreme population aging, and financial pressure on social security systems. But this is a big if. As Bongaarts notes in a Policy Forum article in the journal Science, current surveys in Europe and the U.S. find that couples typically desire two children. If this goal guides their eventual reproductive behavior, lower levels of fertility will not persist.

During times when women postpone childbearing, discrepancies between total fertility rates and likely completed fertility can be as high as 0.4 births per woman—and though this may seem a small fraction, Bongaarts has calculated that it can cumulate over time to have a large impact on population size.

Many developed countries have this discrepancy between current fertility levels, which contain a tempo distortion, and still-to-be-completed fertility levels, which will be shaped by higher fertility goals, Bongaarts says. But once women stop deferring births, the distortion will disappear. On the basis of the tempo-adjusted figures, he predicts, "Assuming preferences remain at current levels, the very low fertility rates observed in the developed world will rise close to the two children most couples want."

Low Fertility Due to Delay in — not Dearth of — Births (http://www.popcouncil.org/publications/popbriefs/pb4(3)_5.html)

That is an interesting link, Spooks ...
elsewhere it gives three estimates of population in 2150,
5.8 billion given low fertility and low mortality rates,
9.8 billion given medium fertility and low mortality rates,
16.2 billion given high fertility and low mortality rates.

I tend to agree with them on most points, and expect that the medium projection is the most likely, except for one thing;

the low estimate for mortality might not be low enough-

by 2150 I expect some remarkable developments in longevity science, and it may be that many people will be living for a significantly longer period of time,

which will cause a marked rise in population over time unless fertility levels are cut right back.
__________________
SF worldbuilding at
http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html

to the original poster,

>..:Look at the amount of jobs available vs. the amount of unemployed people. There just aren't enough jobs. The cities are crowded, the small towns are becoming urbanized. Small countries are breaking out in to plague-scale diseases. We're having wars. This is all the symptoms of over-population"..."

Typical angst response to the woes of overpopulation. government and people have always complained of such things. and why not? it concerns the welfare of the paying taxpayers and the condition of the society.

so, what do the lot of them do?
go forth and populate elsewhere.

and your suggestions, esp. about birth control, where do you live? in China? or do you want america to be just like that?
you'd cause more rioting and disgruntling among the christians and the other groups. i think we'll have enough of the burning down of abortion clinics thank you very much.

and the rest of ya'll replies, horrible for the most part except for blindman. he at least has some *qualifying reasoning* for the response of over population.

seriously, that's why there are events taking place that are making way for the future generations, to live in another planet. whoa, not an original concept but it's what the future holds don't you think?

and never mind about all that crap i've read that prevents us from going to mars in another thread. of course theres going to be complications but if it's not in our time maybe in several generations..but do we have time enough? will the earth overpopulate itself?

nope. not as long as there are wars and you can thank your lucky stars that there are dissention among small groups in 3rd world countries that eliminate that growth. and no i'm not for it. disgusting business if you ask me. and let's not forget the contribution america has made all in the name of *freedom*!!
i love america and for what it's worth, living in a socialist european country, i love what america stands for, even if the rest of the world is overpopulating.
y''know if you think about it, religion does play a BIG fucking role in over population. Spread your seeds or something like that. Populate the world. You can't exactly tell a devoted religious woman to stop having children when she thinks shes going to be punished?

k, and all your statistics of graphs and models showing what the world will be like and what will happen is all just envitable stuff.
let's see, 250 mil living in the us alone, or is the stats higher now?
then you come to 3rd world countries, let's give the example of India: based solely on their old world culture and lifestyle, but how about China. Always up for debate that country. All this talk about Sars and stuff, birth control and horrible executional going ons on a day to day basis. Gotta think that China is the oldest civilization in the world. Everything starts from the east and ends in the west. Now after the religions, went non. It certainly didn't do all that great to hold a candle to other countries. but thats my opinion. i personally enjoyed the days of dynastic rule.

i had to ask my 21 year old friend who has a promising career as a dentist and to have her own practice, she is so deep in her religion that she thereafter got pregnant after her first and says it's okay. Knowing full well that religion dislikes the prevention. but who knows, maybe she'll be a happier person with lots of babies and finally finishing her career at 30.

in truth, and in a focused enclosure, a man and a woman together want to have children, let them, you can't possibly deny the fact that people want to bring a little something of themselves in this world. It's a way of immortality for us. Fuck the fact that the world is overrun with trash that can't be placed at the bottom of the ocean. Let our future generation worry about it.

Forget about jobs and crap like that, the bottom line is there are WAY too many homo-sapiens on the planet earth. It is in never before seen plague proportions. We WOULD be culled drastically if a smarter animal than us happened to evolve because its totally not practical to have so many of one animal in any area, let alone every area.
Its bad for the planet to have so many people but its also bad for people to have so many people, its bad for every single thing on earth.
But is anything seriously being done? no.
Overpopulation is by far the most serious problem the world faces today, it is the route of just about every single problem there is. But nobody is taking it seriously. This problem is really going to kick us all in the ass soon. The longer its left unchecked the bigger the boot and the harder the kick will eventually be.

How much Earth is there?: 126 billion acres

Amount of Earth covered by low bio-productive oceans, deserts, ice caps, and human settlement: 94 billion acres

How much bio-productive land and sea exists? 32 billion acres

Current human population: 6 billion

How much exists per person today? 5.3 acres

How much is available per person if we leave 80% wild for the 25 million other species on Earth? 1 acre

How much do humans on average use globally ? 6.9 acres


Currently, Earth is ecologically filled with humans and as one specie we overshoot Earth's bio-capacity by 30%!

http://www.globallivingproject.org/footprint.html

what kinda asshole am i? (http://www.MyFootprint.org)

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
Forget about jobs and crap like that, the bottom line is there are WAY too many homo-sapiens on the planet earth. It is in never before seen plague proportions. We WOULD be culled drastically if a smarter animal than us happened to evolve because its totally not practical to have so many of one animal in any area, let alone every area.
Its bad for the planet to have so many people but its also bad for people to have so many people, its bad for every single thing on earth.
But is anything seriously being done? no.
Overpopulation is by far the most serious problem the world faces today, it is the route of just about every single problem there is. But nobody is taking it seriously. This problem is really going to kick us all in the ass soon. The longer its left unchecked the bigger the boot and the harder the kick will eventually be.
Spot on. But reducing population means reducing economic growth - so it ain't going to happen. We'll just have to wait for a disaster of some sort, the hard kick of the boot you mention. Let's hope it happens soon while there's still something left to save.

Howabout the rule that you may only breed after the age of thirty? Be very evenhanded and would affect nobody in my family one bit. We have a habit marrying late. hehe

I have a crazy ridiculous outlandish plan!:)

Every infant born is given an injection that makes them infertile. At the age of 30 people take a test(if they wish) to see if they are worthy of breeding. It would be a very strict, mental and physical exam, only the most ideal humans will pass. When they pass they are given the antidote to the injection and they are free to have children.

This is a rough idea that would need to be thoroughly polished before it was fed to the public but I think it can work. We just need to make it seem as un-insulting as possible. After a few generations people would get used to it and it would just be accepted that very few people can breed. At first most people won't be able to so they won't feel too bad.

What do you think?:)

... :( aah screw you guys, I still say I'd make the best king of earth ever.

have you seen that classic movie, "Logans Run?"
everyone i think over 30 has to be eliminated?

your concept is sort of funny, although it could work if people will even let you near their babies! haha

Overpopulation is by far the most serious problem the world faces today, it is the route of just about every single problem there is.

perhaps so but could you make your case with a bit more detail?
there are plenty of projections flying around. pick one that you favor and perhaps we can discuss it

Originally posted by Clockwood

I wont be alive during the worst of it so I am merely a spectator. My parents only had two children and I will only have two children so I am not making things worse.

That is the case if you ignore the fact that other people are having more than 2 babies. Since the population of the earth is rising, we can say that, on average, people are having more than 2 babies.

Thus, since it is within your power not to have babies, it would be wrong to have any because you will still be contributing to the high average and increased population. And you KNOW that other people are still having babies, right? So you can't argue that in one generation a bunch of people will have your same idea and wipe out the human race by not procreating.

Overpopulation is NOT a crisis. Obviously we should try to slow it down by getting people to use protection and only have so many kids, but so what if that doesn't work and we balloon out of control? There is a natural safeguard to fix such things. Too many people for the amount of food? Opps! You died!

Harsh, but it works. (Humans would take mass starvations to be serious problems and would be smart and THEN fix it - putting an end to fluxuations (see below).)

In nature, a predator eats too much of the prey. The predator's population increases. Too few prey are left to sustain the life of the predators. Many of the predators die. Then the prey aren't being picked upen and increase. And the cycle repeats. Those are what I mean by fluxuations in populations.

In those cases there are geography considerations, but even for humans who can eat anything, anywhere - there are other factors on our side, like intelligence, to stop us from eating everything that exists and then completely becoming extinct from it.

We owe it to mother earth to live on. We owe it to mother nature to leave earth behind and spread beyond her embrace and take the universe that has been given to us. To go into decline is to say we have had enough and we should just sit back and wait for our death. [/B][/QUOTE]

Most of your reply was so smart and thought through that I couldnt help but be disappointed at the last words.
We`re a part of nature as anything else, and not more special than any other speices, even thoug we like to put ourselves in the high seats.
More people means more space needed (slowly turning forests into city jungles), food and production increases, more cars etc.
Bad for nature (extinction of animal species to name one problem) and bad for human (people like myself living in polluted city hellholes).

Clockwood said,

I don't worry. Given time the human race will reach equilibrium. It won't be a pleasant state and will give us a really big reason to advance.

EI_Sparks responded,

that's like seeing a wall coming up at you when you're driving your car at 60mph and saying "well, I don't mind - we'll have stopped after the crash and it'll teach me not to drive too fast"!


i think thats the point, human history shows that we consistently react only after we "hit the wall" or are too close to avoid it completely.

i dont like it and on an individual level i try to do better but when it comes to humanity as a whole i tend to agree with clockwood. We rarely, if ever, get enough momentum for a given concern to move proactively.


buff

heyya all :)
in response to the thread starter post only
i would like to point out a few minor yet major wee things

one
the rich get richer and constanly increase their profit margins
the technology evolution has been used as an excuse to lay off millions of jobs to increase profit
so the debate about the job situation in relation to population is a blatent lie preached to those who dont know any better

two
if people agree to have either one or two children only and are forced to go to parenting classes prior to conception the population would stabalise on a current bassis
birth control should be compulsory for all fertile people under legal age
HOWEVER the current money has not been invested to produce something that may not cause long term health problems
SO that can be used as a self fulfilling prophecy at the expense of children

three
people who have the desire to have many children have seriouse
mental issues that requires treatment
such a concept is contrary to quality parenting
it is usualy linked to a desire to abandon the role of the parent to the oldest child and de-stabalise the learning environment for all the children amoung other things

currently the majority of the worlds population is too greedy and selfish to allow the elimination of fatal diseases and such other causes of mass population control
too often religouse creed minded people use their abilty to breed to create their own little church of slaves around themselfs
freakin sick-oes

all those considering the concept of sons and daughters to work the farm are stuck in the ignorance of beliefe that suggests you are stretching your abilities to operate a computer and should not operate food processors and other labour saving devices in fear of being a hypocrite

peace light truth love
groove on all :)

Technology isn't an excuse for laying people off (if you take excuse as not meaning reason), it's a good reason! Why pay 1000 people when you could pay some small overhead and cut 500 of them? It's some people's jobs to improve technology (and you are damn lucky for it) - do you think they should be layed off instead? It's economics. They aren't opening businesses to help people. It's to make money. It's in everybody's best interests to have everybody employed, but not to have them employed unnecessarily. There are many safeguards too: free money so you can be unemployed and look for another job, easy loans to get better training. There are lots of jobs and people need to stop being lazy and look for them. Where do you think the money of the money-making people goes?

And I fail to see how unemployement really relates to overpopulation.

jjhlk
good points i believe you would be in a majority of sorts
two questions and very relavant ones at that
---
Where do you think the money of the money-making people goes?
---
to other over pricing rich people genraly
look at the world of art as an easy example
the most prised paintings are all of dead artists and swapped between the rich elite for millions and inbetween you have the other less rich people who make huge commisions off it

the business world is a good example as well
if you have enough money you can employ accountants and get tax deductions so the taxt paying office workers subsididises your accountants wages of 1000 dollars per hour
who is most likely your golfing buddy or your best friends idle son or daughter

and the company only pays about 2-3 % tax while all the other people/ office workers labourers tradespeople
lower income people pay about 30% tax

then all the realy rich people who sack the 500 people as you say
have no wish to put money from profit into social services for those who have no job or need re-training
and they vote for a person who will abandon support for lower income people and those without jobs and health care and education

it is one side of the political landscape
the basic names could be used as like
capitalism Vs socialism

you live in the working example just look around yourself

===
And I fail to see how unemployement really relates to overpopulation
---
why do poor people have lots of kids?
to be earners to support the family income
like building a business
its a common theme that has been running for thousands of years
feed the poor and educate them give them somthing to focus development on and you will
reduce population explosion increase technology growth
and a few other things

but most people are currently too selfish and lazzy minded

Quote
There are lots of jobs and people need to stop being lazy and look for them
---
poor people are not lazzy in genral because they go to great effort to buy and sell drugs to make money to feed their family
they steal items from other people who have more than them
that is the capitalist way
no moral difference in placing 500 people on the unemployment line just to make an extra 2 % profit

capitalism would work fine if it was regulated by the government
and all people had housing and food and education and healthcare

have you ever seen a 5 year old that has been given a taste of icecream for the first time then told not to touch one while the parents are not looking

you need to attach a bit more reality to the working example
of what you think is the current working model motivators

the pyramid system is fine if you are sitting on the top
i find it funny how the rich ones at the top complain when others have to walk on them to get to where they are preaching from

its called being a hypocrite
children learn this at an early age

groove on all :)

Where do you think the money of the money-making people goes?

I think there is something in regards to this that makes sure the massive amounts of money of the elite doesn't get locked away (taken out of the economy so people somewhere are getting shafted): investment. Rich people invest their money to make money. I don't think many smart rich people just let it sit around. They want more money. But at no time is the money really all in their hands. The bank is borrowing it from them and investing, or they're investing. I'm sure some money gets lost though. Makes me wonder how much money is really in the whole system - since people all have as much labour as they're willing to give, in theory there should be enough money to cover everyone. (Unless they're lazy or very unlucky. I think most people tend to think the latter when they're really the former - and it kills their motivation.)

The idea of government housing, food and medicare is interesting. Welfare almost does that, except I'm sure it's almost impossible to live on it since costs depend on your region. Medicare is kind of optional. (Maybe non-free medicare would spur people into getting jobs - or they DIE! BWAHAHA. OK not really.)

jjhlk
quote
since people all have as much labour as they're willing to give, in theory there should be enough money to cover everyone. (Unless they're lazy or very unlucky. I think most people tend to think the latter when they're really the former - and it kills their motivation.)
---
so are you saying that in the majority those who are poor are only poor because they do not commit enough crime?

quote
The idea of government housing, food and medicare is interesting. Welfare almost does that, except I'm sure it's almost impossible to live on it since costs depend on your region
---
welfare is put in place to stop the poor from over throwing the rich
that is the only reason it is still running
it serves the rich not the poor by definition

it gives the rich people a false truth that they are doing something to make the world a better place

and the few that actualy set out to help are often manipulated by the greedy and the religouse nutters

example you may well ask
well heres one that is not exactly what you might want to think about
lets say the government put the price of petrol up for one month
by 2 cents per litre
how much money would be made?
enough to build a hospital i would expect
but who would actualy recieve the majority of themoney would be the people who are already very wealthy
making highpayed boards and councils to soak up all the cream to a point that renders the money inadequate to build the hospital completely

MADiCARE
is a working joke on the premis of the concept of capitalism
if you are treating those who have no money to pay
how can you run it as a profitable concept
thats just completely retarded and flawed logic
hence money buys life
hence survival of the ones who can obtain money through any means
i can sympathise with the medical staff knowing they will be most likely over worked and risk possible burn-out
and so try to look to equate the value of their own life through their wages yet must be expected to treat only those who have money
so while some may wish to help all people
are more likely to be caught between the hypocracey

hence the real issue
are the majority of the worlds population ready to take responsability to be involved in the control of the birth rates and distribute food and housing and medical care equaly
i dont think so

WHY is the only relevant question
any thoughts?

groove on all :)

You keep trying to build straw man arguments with mine. I didn't say people don't commit enough crime. If they were stealing things then it would go against my argument that the system isn't finite (of course, it isn't infinite, but I didn't have another term handy), because people can contribute labour if they have nothing else. Labour for themselves to steal things isn't the same thing.

Welfare isn't to keep people in check. It's used to give people something to fall back on so they can prepare to become productive again if they lost everything for whatever reason. If you recently spent all your money on something, and then got fired, you'd be pretty screwed if you lived in a city and didn't know anybody. Enter welfare.

I don't see how welfare helps the rich either. If it prevents poor people from attacking the rich, then what do they want instead?Some form of free money...?

Medicare is good and "profitable" because it keeps people healthy enough to work. If you come down with a rare disease and you don't have any money you might be out of luck though. Medicare is somewhat free in canada, so nobody is really excluded because of their status.

No I don't know if all countries can distribute "food, housing, and medicare", but that doesn't mean welfare and medicare are bad. It also doesn't have any relevancy. Now I'm confused whether you think welfare and medicare are bad or not.

Over-population

the reason we have a concept of overpopulation
is because of the in-equality of the distribution of natural resources

its that simple
nothing more nothing less

a small group take the majority of profit from the land that everyone lives on

jjhlk
to get an idea of how unfair the system is just look at the real tax that companys pay compared to the "blue collar" employee

a flat tax would be fair

why should people expect poor people to abide by the law when they have no access to health care
the more money you have the better health care you get
regardless of the humanity of the indevidual or how they got the money
private hospitals remove money from the main health system
which downgrades the basic genral level of health care for all the population specificly for those on low incomes who work just as hard as those who have high incomes

so what do the poorer people do
they have more children to provide more income for the family
its a cycle that seves the elite rich
and maintains the inequality and crime rates and is the primary cause for the population problem

simple reaLY!

GROOVE ON :)

Still say we need to invent the contraceptive bomb. Anybody up for it?

sky civilization or underwater life
:D

Yeah, have a power outage and everybody dies. That would help with overpopulation.

To nearly all of you in this forum, I have one thing to say. Dictators are a dying breed, so if you want the world to listen, educate! You can not force the world to put on condoms any more easily than you can force the world to f__k. Educate! And in the meantime, don't bicker, just talk. Those of us who are already here should spend their --- our --- time investing in education and discussing the options. Bickering gets us no further than dictatorships.

p.s. to whomever it was who insisted that India and China are the two leaders in producing offspring, if you have to be argumentative, get your facts right first.

Actually humanity should actually should be seeing a slowing down, and even decline in population by the end of the century so I am not that worried.

we went from about 700 million in 1750 to 1.2 billion in 1900 (2x increase in 150 yrs). Then we went from the 1.2 billion 1900 to 6 billion in 2000 (5x increase in 100 years). Perhaps we will level off in another century but we could be in serious trouble before then.

Not necessarily, the developed world’s population’s growth rate is pathetically low. The replacement rate (not growth rate) is 2.1 children per woman, Bologna Italy has less then 1, and most European states are at 1.2 or a tad more. Because of so much economic and social development happening in China and India their populations should start to slow down, frankly China is already below 2.1 levels. China’s population should start to decrease after 2050. India is the problem, but with concurrent losses of population in the West, we can have some more space. Africa really doesn’t scare me all that much, AIDS will sadly get worse in that continent and millions will die, and have much shorter lives. I am personally rather optimistic about the world’s population. I think it should stabilize at our current levels or hopefully just a bit less. The real problems come when according we run out of artificial carrying capacity like Oil.

Your restrictions sound like something out of a future sci-fi novel right now, but I can definitely see something like that happening. In China I don't think there are any actual laws prohibitting a couple from having more than two children, but I do think that those who do are looked down upon and don't have as many oppurtunities for job advancement. That's just one step in the direction of greater restrictions.

they used to be really strict on it, i heard a story about 2 cops cutting open a womans stomach, pulling ou the baby and killing it.
now they are being sensible, giving benifits to familys with 1 or no children and taxng those who have more

I do believe that the current US misadministration is following Zbigniew Brzezinksi’s 1997 book "The Grand Chess Game" very closely. I haven't read it myself but I understand it calls for the death of 2/3 of the global population. For cowboys who feel "there is not enough room for the both of us, pardner" that might be in the plans.

I support China's Family Planning policies. It works. They've prevented as many births as the entire population of Germany since the early 1980's.

It caused a lot of mysery.

A bitter pill to take. But look at modern China now...

Once hated, the one-child policy in the 80s and 90s is now hailed as a visionary policy by a majority of the Chinese population.

Hello one-child India?

A Majority of the chinese population who grew up with no sublings would probably not no any different.

It caused a lot of misery.

You mean...
1.Needless killing of newborn females to get a male child,
2.Forced abortions, including late-stage ones where formaldehyde is injected into the skull of a fetus, or
3.Giving birth to a second child, knowing that the government will not recognize it and deem his/her existence as illegal?

YEAH. I won't deny that China's family planning policies do in fact cause misery. Such is the case for the bias against China's perspective on human rights. The truth is, these are experienced by a handful of people who are either incredibly stupid dumbfucks (referring to the 1st case) or don't follow the law (as in the 2nd or 3rd). The third one is a little sad, but that can still change. Much of the laws are still rudimentary, and they're still working it out. This is why I still support Family Planning.

India must control its population problem.