Are there any morally right ways to slow "overpopulation"?

[Texashiker]

And what are these smart kids without college educations doing for work?

Start their own business.

As for over population, I think nature can take care of that. Its just a matter of time before another disease come along. After all, HIV has killed over 20 million people.

How can we curve population growth? I think its through education.

 

[bignateyk]

Make welfare contingent upon not further worsening your state in life.

Have another kid = no more welfare.

Or, forced IUDs for women on welfare. If you can't take care of yourself or the kids you have, you shouldn't be having more.

Or, tax breaks for people who have fewer kids.

The problem with overpopulation is that it is really the 3rd world countries that are driving it. Sterilizing all the welfare queens in first world countries wouldn't even put a dent in it.

That said, I agree with you. When you start collecting welfare, you are told you aren't allowed to have any children while collecting. If you do get knocked up while on welfare, either have an abortion, go through with the pregnancy and get sterilized afterward, or get kicked off welfare.

 

[Texashiker]

The problem with overpopulation is that it is really the 3rd world countries that are driving it. Sterilizing all the welfare queens in first world countries wouldn't even put a dent in it.

Religion also fosters population growth, look at the mulsims, mormons and ultra-orthodox jews.

There are towns in utah where something like 90% of the population are on welfare.

The people that strain the system are outbreeding the people that contribute.

~ EDIT ~

We could always do away with the mumps vaccine and let nature sterilize the weak.

 

[yuchai]

One child per marriage actually reduces the population by my highly sophisticated calculations. Seems like two should be ok.

An average of 2 would reduce your population over time as not all will be able to produce offspring of their own (death before reproductive age, infertiliy, etc)

 

[z1ggy]

I don't know if this is ignorance or craziness.

It's neither. This is a THEORETICAL thread. I am not saying I would ever want that crap. But the world is a crazy place, and crazy shit can happen. When you look at certain countries, that really produce nothing but are still consuming resources, what is the real point of them?? When is the last time you said to yourself, "Thank god we have Syria around!" or, "Man I don't know what I would do with out good ol Afganistan!".

In a world where there will be extremely limited resources, the strongest will survive. Durastic shit will need to be done so we survive. Let's be honest here. It's supply and demand. If the supply goes DOWN and demand goes UP (due to populations getting larger and large) then eventually, that won't be sustainable. If you can't make the supply go up to match that demand...That leaves one choice now doesn't it?

 

[z1ggy]

While you are it, go ahead and sterilize people that do not have blond hair & blue eyes. Hell take it up a notch, just kill them, no reason to have these "people" around.

More or less, I would be in favor for reducing the type of folks who make visits to Muary and Jerry Springer. If they are real people and situations, then that is pretty scary. What good do these fools do us besides flipping out burgers (if they even are doing that in the first place)? They breed other idiot people into this world, make hard working people pay more taxes and are a general burden to society.

 

[kyrax12]

If JUST oil is depleted, we are talking about 90-95% of the people being wiped off this planet.

BILLIONS of people owe their life to OIL, without it, population growth would've stayed the same as prior.

Wow Oil consumption shot straight up..

 

[Dumac]

It's neither. This is a THEORETICAL thread. I am not saying I would ever want that crap. But the world is a crazy place, and crazy shit can happen. When you look at certain countries, that really produce nothing but are still consuming resources, what is the real point of them?? When is the last time you said to yourself, "Thank god we have Syria around!" or, "Man I don't know what I would do with out good ol Afganistan!".

In a world where there will be extremely limited resources, the strongest will survive. Durastic shit will need to be done so we survive. Let's be honest here. It's supply and demand. If the supply goes DOWN and demand goes UP (due to populations getting larger and large) then eventually, that won't be sustainable. If you can't make the supply go up to match that demand...That leaves one choice now doesn't it?

It says a lot that you think whole countries 'produce nothing'.

 

[z1ggy]

It says a lot that you think whole countries 'produce nothing'.

Again, theoretically speaking, which would you rather lose? 50M Americans, or 50M of some country who outputs significantly less product than we do?

Why are you taking this so personally? Half the people in here are talking about forcing people to only have one kid, like PRC. Oh yeah, because communism is just so much better? There are no morally right ways to control population. That's why if it ever had to be done, the most immoral of ways will prove to be the most effective.

Extreme situations will call for extreme measures, that's all I am saying.

 

[God Mode]

Stop trying to get the entire world to adapt and expect a standard of living equal to a middle-class American.

 

[dighn]

Do what China does. Big bonuses to families with a single child and simply withdraw them if they have more than one (abnormal circumstances excepted). If they could just get over the whole "boy good, famiry regacy carry on" and quit fucking with their girl infants I think it's a pretty civil system, but the problem is a result of the people and not the implementation itself imo.

You can knock on the Chinese government all day, but they did China and the world a huge favor by controlling birth rates. It was really the morally responsible thing to do; its execution was less than perfect, but what is? I think a lot of developing countries could learn from that.

 

[kyrax12]

You can knock on the Chinese government all day, but they did China and the world a huge favor by controlling birth rates. It was really the morally responsible thing to do; its execution was less than perfect, but what is? I think a lot of developing countries could learn from that.

How would you stop the "female" problem though?

 

[chusteczka]

How would you stop the "female" problem though?

Stop spoiling them.

 

[T_Yamamoto]

Stop spoiling them.

Or become India where they prefer males

 

[SlitheryDee]

What is the reasoning that couples who have two or fewer children use to justify it? They're not financially stable enough? Too involved in their jobs? Want to get all their traveling and vacationing done before getting saddled with children?

Just create a social climate in which people worry about those things enough that they make the same decisions. It would mean lots of education for everyone, and a complete turnaround in basic values for portions of the population. I think it would be next to impossible, actually.

In any case, wouldn't the best and most moral population control be the one that involves everyone simply deciding not to have children until they're ready for them due to being educated and career driven?

 

[dighn]

How would you stop the "female" problem though?

China had the same issue, and while it did create a imbalance, it isn't exactly crippling. Overpopulation would have been a much worse problem. Even though a lot of people in China prefer boys, selective abortion/infanticide aren't as common as one might be lead to believe. These tendencies are also greatly reduced in more educated and developed regions.

It is a potential problem though. To enforce it and to reduce selective abortion and infanticide, you need a strong government and a certain level of existing development.

 

[Dumac]

Again, theoretically speaking, which would you rather lose? 50M Americans, or 50M of some country who outputs significantly less product than we do?

Why are you taking this so personally? Half the people in here are talking about forcing people to only have one kid, like PRC. Oh yeah, because communism is just so much better? There are no morally right ways to control population. That's why if it ever had to be done, the most immoral of ways will prove to be the most effective.

Extreme situations will call for extreme measures, that's all I am saying.

Providing benefits to single-child families isn't 'forcing' anything. And most of the talk would be in jest. Only your comments take the jingoism to the next level.

Your bolded statement also makes no sense, but then again that goes for pretty much everything you have been saying thus far.

 

[Jeff7]

Solution: Have. Fewer. Kids.

Education of women causes birth rates to plummet.

Idiocracy.

There was actually an interesting national geographic piece about overpopulation last year where if trends continue as they are world population will continue to increase for maybe another generation or two and will then start to decline. The article pointed out the one child policy has a big deal made out of it but birth rate was already declining rapidly before it was instituted. Another thing that was pointed out was the maximum theoretical population the earth could sustain has been exceeded over and over again throughout history only for a new target to be set as new technologies appear and change the equation. It seems things aren't as dire as we like to think.

So I'd argue we should just do what we are going to do anyway: Nothing.

I'd hope so. The human population has just gone nuts in the past century or two.

I'll say that there is going to be a limit to the human population, only because the livable space on Earth is finite. I guess technology could mitigate this: Spatial compression or expansion, to make humans smaller, or to make enclosures that are larger on the inside than on the outside; stacking technology to allow us to be stowed in multiple layers of standing-room-only; or move to other planets and overpopulate them.


The other thing then is the popular word "sustainable." Ok, so we can keep a large population alive. Dandy. Look at the living conditions of most of the world. Most of the human species lives in poverty. A large portion of them are packed into India and China. I notice something about the movie and music video clips out of India: People in them. They're everywhere. Their average music video has more extras than you'd see running around in a Godzilla movie. I don't know about anyone else, but that kind of population density would start to wear on me, fast.
Just having a population that is alive may not be the best solution. How about having a smaller population that is more well-off?

 

[Red Storm]

Again, theoretically speaking, which would you rather lose? 50M Americans, or 50M of some country who outputs significantly less product than we do?

Why are you taking this so personally? Half the people in here are talking about forcing people to only have one kid, like PRC. Oh yeah, because communism is just so much better? There are no morally right ways to control population. That's why if it ever had to be done, the most immoral of ways will prove to be the most effective.

Extreme situations will call for extreme measures, that's all I am saying.

Eh? Yes, even communism is better than killing 50 million people.

I am so glad you've got no say in how the world works.

 

[z1ggy]

Providing benefits to single-child families isn't 'forcing' anything. And most of the talk would be in jest. Only your comments take the jingoism to the next level.

Your bolded statement also makes no sense, but then again that goes for pretty much everything you have been saying thus far.

To each their own.

What benefits would this be? A monthly check for $50 from the US gov't for keeping your little swimmers on your woman's face instead of in her? Yeah that's really going to make the idiots of America want to have one kid.

Unless you are suggesting our government "forced" this on us, and failure to follow this would result in penalty? Because yeah that sounds awesome, too.

 

[Yongsta]

How would you stop the "female" problem though?

Korean Farmers had a similar problem (not Korea in general just the rural Farmers). A lot of Korean women who were born in rural areas moved away to urban environments (Seoul, Pusan, etc) so many Korean farmers had trouble finding brides as they didn't want to live in the countryside, so they looked into other countries (such as Vietnam) for brides. Ironically China was top in foreign spouses for Korean grooms.

Though the changes only began two decades ago, as is usually is the case in Korea, those changes were fast indeed. In 2000, a foreigner was involved in 3.5% of newly registered marriages, and in 2005 the share of such "international marriages" reached the impressive 13.5%. In the subsequent years the ratio went down slightly, but was quite steady, so in 2009 some 10.9% of all marriages (33,300 cases) were concluded with foreigners. It is the Korean male who usually take a foreign spouse these days - in 2009, 75.5% of all newly registered mixed marriages had a Korean groom and a foreign bride. In 2009, about a third of all brides in newly registered mixed marriages (34.1%, to be exact) came from China. Vietnam was the second largest bride exporter, with 21.8% of all brides. China and Vietnam were followed by Cambodia and the Philippines, but also by Japan (even though the nature of 1,140 marriages between Japanese women and Korean men must be different).

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/LK16Dg01.html

A lot of people in Korea look down on this type of activity and it opens up some morality issues.

In China, having a female issue can also help the overpopulation issue but there will be a lot of lonely men and they might also have to look abroad (larger scale).

 

[SagaLore]

Yea, mandatory birth control until you apply for a breeding permit.

 

[dighn]

I'll say that there is going to be a limit to the human population, only because the livable space on Earth is finite. I guess technology could mitigate this: Spatial compression or expansion, to make humans smaller, or to make enclosures that are larger on the inside than on the outside; stacking technology to allow us to be stowed in multiple layers of standing-room-only; or move to other planets and overpopulate them.

bringing sci-fi into the picture: virtualization. put everyone into VR, with telepresence units for tasks that require them (resource collection, manufacturing). very low carbon footprint paradise for all.

 

[torpid]

An average of 2 would reduce your population over time as not all will be able to produce offspring of their own (death before reproductive age, infertiliy, etc)

How would the average remain 2 in this scenario?

 

[mvbighead]

It was an example

There is plenty of people out there in professional world with no college degree.



And at 3 you start the murder?

hehe

Seriously?

The reality is this, your example sucks. There are three guys (and perhaps a handful more) that fit that profile:

1) Steve Jobs
2) Bill Gates
3) Mark Zuckerberg

These people are not the norm. No can say that college makes one better than another. The simple fact is, in some positions, you benefit by having a degree. It makes you more qualified than someone else.

I work in an office, and we have a handful of everyone. College/no college. Smart/dumb. Etc. Perfect example is the SQL admin that we have. She is quite intelligent in what she does. She learned everything she did along the way. She has been promoted to manager of her department, and oversees a college educated SQL admin at this time, while still managing SQL herself. She has no college education.

However, if she were to apply for a position at a competing company, her work experience is negated by the absence of a degree. Her subordinate would actually rank higher than her on a majority of company's searches, despite not being as technically inclined as she is.

So, while the degree doesn't make you smarter, it usually makes you more qualified. Your skills and earning potential won't be limited to the organization that you built them in.

The three gentlemen I mentioned were much smarter than 99% of those around them. Their intelligence allowed some pretty amazing things, and some pretty incredible earning potential. Odds are, most will have a better chance of success in their career path with some form of higher education. For every guy with "just" work experience, there are another 5 people with degrees doing less and getting paid more.

I recall another conversation with an IT pro who was turned down for a promotion due to a lack of a degree. They later decided he was the best one for the position, and called him back to offer it to him. He turned them down because he had already started the process of getting that degree.