A crazy solution to the world population problem

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Turin39789

Lifer
Nov 21, 2000
12,218
8
81
Wiki says US is 178th of 239 countries for Pop Density

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density



800px-Countries_by_population_density.svg.png
 

bunnyfubbles

Lifer
Sep 3, 2001
12,248
3
0
Just nuke China

/thread

Except China is aware of their overpopulation and has been working at curbing it.

India is outpacing China in growth and I think the projection is that by 2050 it will be Africa with the largest population.

Instead of a virus that sterilizes people we need to create a virus that educates people to not have sex like rabbits, and if you do have sex, use fucking protection.

I agree with others though, a sterility virus should target offending populaces, there are some countries that are actually in danger of losing population.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,082
136
Silly... Very silly.

Why should people in the US, which does not have population problem be punished because of other parts of the world that do have population problem?

Also, why should somebody like me - that is likely to have no more than 2-3 kids, be punished over action of people who have 10+ kids?

First reply is win.
Thread is finished.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Except China is aware of their overpopulation and has been working at curbing it.

India is outpacing China in growth and I think the projection is that by 2050 it will be Africa with the largest population.

Instead of a virus that sterilizes people we need to create a virus that educates people to not have sex like rabbits, and if you do have sex, use fucking protection.

I agree with others though, a sterility virus should target offending populaces, there are some countries that are actually in danger of losing population.

Actually, we have a "virus" that does the opposite - preaches that families shouldn't use protection.
 

bteeter

Member
Apr 17, 2003
91
1
71
Here is a better idea. Offer people money for giving up their fertility. And when I say giving it up, I mean removal and destruction of the tubes connecting the organs in question. (Ovaries / Testes)

The earlier in life you do it the more you get paid. $100k if you do it before 21, etc.
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,703
12
81
There really isn't a population problem. All the developed nations are barely able to sustain their populations through reproduction. It is just the underdeveloped nations which are growing much too quickly. When they develop, their birth rates will go down too and all will be well with the world.
 

Locut0s

Lifer
Nov 28, 2001
22,205
44
91
There really isn't a population problem. All the developed nations are barely able to sustain their populations through reproduction. It is just the underdeveloped nations which are growing much too quickly. When they develop, their birth rates will go down too and all will be well with the world.

I agree however the problem is that the earth can only sustain about 2 billion people at US middle class standards of living.
 

ysbags

Junior Member
Mar 12, 2010
1
0
0
I just watched a program where a lady pays drug addicts to sterilize them. A bribe in essence. She runs an adoption agency where apparently, an addict gave birth to 8 children and dropped one off every summer, even two a year due to premature infants. This is a greyer area. Addicts who'd do anything for short term cash being bribed to be unable to have children sounds like a win-win scenario, the obvious moral implications notwithstanding. Ie: person's right to procreate, what happens when they are clean later in life. Her argument was the addict forfeits her right to procreate as long as she was abusing drugs; it was unfair to her newborns.
 
Last edited:
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
Is the world really over populated in the first place? I read somewhere that if you packed the entire world's population inside the borders of Texas the population would be less dense than Tokyo or Manahattan.
 

Sureshot324

Diamond Member
Feb 4, 2003
3,370
0
71
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate

How to solve the "problem" for first world countries (bottom half of the lists): end tax breaks and other incentives to pop out kids. These were needed 200 years ago when a few colonists needed to secure the land from invaders, not so much any more.

Better sci-fi solution: Retro-virus which hardwires women to always have boy-girl twins and only conceive once. For the most part returns natural selection to the world; genetically flawed, weak or stupid children can't just be replaced. Just make sure it can be reversed whne the population starts falling or we go to colonize a new planet.

People who pop out a lot of kids are not going "hmm, my taxes are 2% higher this year, I probably shouldn't have any more kids". Getting rid of tax breaks for kids is just gonna result in more broke families on welfare. The population of most western countries would be dropping if it weren't for immigration. We should be encouraging people to have more kids so we wouldn't have to rely on immigration so much to keep our economy going.
 

BarkingGhostar

Diamond Member
Nov 20, 2009
8,410
1,617
136
Silly... Very silly.

Why should people in the US, which does not have population problem be punished because of other parts of the world that do have population problem?

Also, why should somebody like me - that is likely to have no more than 2-3 kids, be punished over action of people who have 10+ kids?
You should be punished if you have more than one when you are not paying 100% for the first one. Otherwise, someone else is having to pick up the bill left fully UNPAID.
 

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
Stop me if I'm wrong on this, but wouldn't those who the virus left fertile essentially have a resistance to the virus, a resistance that could be passed along genetically to their offspring, rending the virus moot after a few generations?
 

hasu

Senior member
Apr 5, 2001
993
10
81
Deleted (for fear of all the new internet laws)
 
Last edited:

theflyingpig

Banned
Mar 9, 2008
5,616
18
0
What a stupid solution. You clearly haven't thought this through. First, randomly selecting people is foolish because you will get people who have genes worthy for breeding. Second, virus' have a nasty habit of mutating. You're forgetting that these creature go through hundreds of generations very quickly.

A better solution would be to kill off the undesirables; those who are not intelligent enough to be allowed into society. Those who have not advanced technologically or culturally in the centuries human civilization has been around. These people are stagnating the human gene pool simply by existing, therefore they should be eliminated first. A mass genocide of this nature would undoubtedly lead to war, and war itself is population control. In order to advance, human civilization must have war. I cannot stress this enough. Evolution is survival. Survival is evolution. Our technology allows many undesirables to live, when nature says they should die. So now it falls on us, the thinking men, to self evolve our owns species. We do this through war. Those who are unfit will die, and the rest of us will survive and guide human evolution to perfection. Everyone knows this.
 

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
29,391
2,738
126
So this isn't serious, just something that occured to me out of the blue today. This is undoubtedly morally wrong and not something that you could ever actually do but it is an interesting thought experiment. What it is is a solution to the world's problem of overpopulation.

The solution? Engineer a virus that randomly sterilizes a random sampling of the world's population. The virus would be engineered so that it had absolutely no other impact on the affected person other than making them sterile or infertile. No side effects whatsoever. The virus would be readily transmissible either through the air or like AIDS via sex and blood. You would have to make sure that the number of people it sterilized was high enough that it made an impact on the world's population but not so high that you needed to have a high replacement rate to maintain a reasonably large population. Also you would have to make sure that the targeting was 100% random and didn't favour any one genetic type over another.

Any individual infected with said virus would probably feel it extremely unfair and cruel but when you look at it from a global perspective over time it has some merits.

forced birth control for those on welfare. a shot that last a year. as a side effect, they should be healthier since they get to see a doctor for a checkup yearly

but it doesnt matter when in 2012 the north/south magnetic poles reverse causing the end of the world
 

brainhulk

Diamond Member
Sep 14, 2007
9,376
454
126
Instead of sterilizing, which would render people very angry and resentful why did I have to get it. USA should should just weaponize a gay virus (P3NI5). Imagine dropping a P3NI5 bomb in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran. Instead of using their energy to kill each other. They'll be making out with each other in their caves, tanks, or what have you. They'll be using their brains to help the environment, become artists, and doing each others hair or some other gay shit. All the while they won't be making little terrorist babies.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Just nuke China

/thread

Removes over 1/6 world population.

Removes offshoring to China from USA providing USA with many needed jobs.

Creates more jobs in USA to assist in cleanup of nuclear fallout of China.

Eliminates a few trillion $ in debt from USA to China.

Stops the giant sucking sound of China burning through natural resources so quickly (oil, copper, steel, etc).



Sounds great. Where do I sign up? ():)