Is global population control now a good option?

[IEC]

Originally posted by: darkxshade
The world definitely needs population control, people are getting dumber everyday. And this is the result of retards breeding daily with no restraint while educated and responsible people stop at 1-2 children or adoption.

Eugenics advocate alert

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
One way for the USA to slightly reduce the birth rate would be to remove all the tax benefits that come from having children.

The USA doesn't need to reduce the birth rate. We are barely at the birth rate needed to sustain the population (2.11). In the past, we have dipped below that number.

The USA doesn't need to reduce it to sustain the population, but the rest of the world (read: India and China) that are increasing populations much higher than the sustainability point.

Then again I'm a fan of reducing global population to 3-4 billion tops. But hey that's just me.

China already has population controls and has a birth rate (1.77) below the number needed to sustain their population

India's birthrate is 2.76 but they don't have a very long life expectancy and have a very high infant mortality rate.

 

[soccerballtux]

I think population controls would be good. We'll start with the democrats.

 

[Gothgar]

Originally posted by: spidey07
We also have the most resources. So if anything the US should be producing MORE children. And now I think I've heard everything, enforce population control all in the name of going green. This is madness.

Madness????



THIS IS AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111




sorry, had to do it

 

[Elias824]

didn't obama just ok the use of foreign aid to go to abortion clinics. It would be usefull for countries who cannot support a growing population like china and india, but it would be Silly for the US to adopt such a policy. Now someone say something about how minorities have a much higher birth rate then us whities.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: spidey07
We also have the most resources. So if anything the US should be producing MORE children. And now I think I've heard everything, enforce population control all in the name of going green. This is madness.

Easter Island

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
One way for the USA to slightly reduce the birth rate would be to remove all the tax benefits that come from having children.

The USA doesn't need to reduce the birth rate. We are barely at the birth rate needed to sustain the population (2.11). In the past, we have dipped below that number.

The USA doesn't need to reduce it to sustain the population, but the rest of the world (read: India and China) that are increasing populations much higher than the sustainability point.

Then again I'm a fan of reducing global population to 3-4 billion tops. But hey that's just me.

China already has population controls and has a birth rate (1.77) below the number needed to sustain their population

India's birthrate is 2.76 but they don't have a very long life expectancy and have a very high infant mortality rate.

True on both counts, but when those two countries combined hold about 37% of the entire population of the planet (China at ~1.3 bn, india at ~1.2 bn, and world population at ~6.7 bn). China has artificially limited their birth rate from about 5 births/woman in the 70's to today's 1.8, which means that we are seeing the effects of their population from the 70's to now.

Regardless, when you have populations in the billions it will take multiple generations for a negative birth rate to actually REDUCE the population.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Ronstang
I have not read anything in this thread yet but there is one simple solution to the overpopulation of the earth......stop all welfare programs and giveaways across the globe and the earth will automatically reach the equilibrium number of people it can sustain all by itself. You can't prop up the leeches and continue to support the unlimited children they produce, because there are no real consequences to curb their behavior when they are taken care of by the state, and expect the world not to be overpopulated. There are plenty of resources on this planet for those WILLING TO COMPETE for them.

Unfortunately, in a democracy, the leeches have 1 vote.

 

[Squisher]

I think that is a modest proposal.

 

[Crono]

Population size is not the problem. The earth can support even more than 6 billion people without major detriment.
Whether you are talking about food shortages, environmental damage, diseases, etc, the problems stem from the societies and people themselves, not the number of people. The only thing "population control" will do is provide a method for (as the name implies) people to control a population.

 

[DarrelSPowers]

in a word, YES

 

[Amused]

It really is sad to me to see so many people think that totalitarianism is the answer to anything.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: Amused
It really is sad to me to see so many people think that totalitarianism is the answer to anything.

Same here. Totalitarianism isn't inherently destructive, but it makes it a lot easier for leaders to manipulate and carry out their own agendas on a larger scale.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
I think population controls would be good. We'll start with the democrats.

..they're doing that already. Nearly all abortions in the US are liberal women flushing their kids down the toilet. I'll bet some of em get choked in the crib.

 

[rbV5]

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
I think population controls would be good. We'll start with the democrats.

..they're doing that already. Nearly all abortions in the US are liberal women flushing their kids down the toilet. I'll bet some of em get choked in the crib.

Oddly,

Liberal women have babies so they can get checks, they don't flush money pal

Conservative women get abortions to kill the demon seed before they marry the big $ Conservative MEN drive the anti-abortion crusade to kill the demon seed before he gets the wimenz preg.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

I'll eat your babies to control populations

 

[thomsbrain]

We could start out by ending tax exemptions for children. Those were your fucking choices (pardon the pun), so why should I have to subsidize the very existence of your little snots? I can understand public school, but if anything the people with kids should be paying more than their share of taxes, not less. And ending credit for kids would result in less government intervention into our lives instead of more, which is what any laws regarding having kids would do.

I'd consider myself a liberal, but in this case my environmentalist side wins over my socialist side.

 

[zinfamous]

Short answer: No

Long answer: Yes, kinda.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: flunky nassau
Since resources are becoming a premium & global warming is looming (whether it's true or not), I'm thinking some sense of responsibility should be engaged when planning a family.

This makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
One way for the USA to slightly reduce the birth rate would be to remove all the tax benefits that come from having children.

The USA doesn't need to reduce the birth rate. We are barely at the birth rate needed to sustain the population (2.11). In the past, we have dipped below that number.

Yea, I guess I dunno why I spouted that.... US population is growing due to immigration and not excessive birth rate. Also, it's not growing very rapidly, and there is still plenty of space and resources for many many more ...

I think in most countries with very high birth rates it's either due to one of two reasons.
1.) if they are an agricultural society, another set of hands to help with the farm is an asset rather than a cost. Farmers with more kids can get more work done.
2.) They were at one time an agricultural society, but are not currently (maybe due to one of these ... but not exclusive to them ... drought, industrialization, overcrowding, etc) ... Thus it's still there cultural norm to have a bunch of kids. Religion is part of the culture, but that is where a portion of the blame lies...

For case #1, I don't think we are going to put a stop to it any time soon.
For case #2, starvation can increase mortality rates until the deaths/births are balanced as long as nobody sends any aid or helps them. I'd rather risk population growth (at least over the short term) than intentionally do nothing at all to help the helpless....

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
I think population controls would be good. We'll start with the democrats.

..they're doing that already. Nearly all abortions in the US are liberal women flushing their kids down the toilet. I'll bet some of em get choked in the crib.

genetic suicide is funnies

 

[rbV5]

The population control like where the men outnumber the women by 10% in a couple decades....yea, everyone looking forward to that

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: rbV5
The population control like where the men outnumber the women by 10% in a couple decades....yea, everyone looking forward to that

I don't see that happening. Sure, the scale is much longer, but at the current rate, the Y chromosome will completely cease to exist in ~5 million years. It's already down to some 45 genes (only 5 of them being of any real use) from 145 genes a mere 100,000 years ago.

So the trend should be anything but lack of women.

(and before anyone cries "math foul," there's a lot more on a chromosome than just genes. transcription factors, start and stop codons, and tuns of other non-coding DNA--and especially the Y which is some 10% gene as it currently stands)

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: flunky nassau
http://women.timesonline.co.uk...ies/article5627634.ece


Since resources are becoming a premium & global warming is looming (whether it's true or not), I'm thinking some sense of responsibility should be engaged when planning a family.

I guess the problem with sudden population control is what China is facing, where their aging population is going up against low birthrates, causing a possible collapse of the social safety-net system.

Although it looks like the U.S. ranks 135th in birth rate, don't we leave the largest carbon footprint of any nation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...ountries_by_birth_rate


I guess for starters, if you already have 6 kids, don't have f*cking octoplets!

Just sayin'



This post could possibly be preaching to the choir, since being on Anandtech has made most guys on here sterile anyway.

Sure population control is a good idea, as long as it is voluntary. We need to start and major advertising campaigns to convince people to get voluntary free temporary (mostly) sterilization, but charge for the reverse procedure.

Good luck convincing anyone who is Catholic of that...

 

[rbV5]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: rbV5
The population control like where the men outnumber the women by 10% in a couple decades....yea, everyone looking forward to that

I don't see that happening. Sure, the scale is much longer, but at the current rate, the Y chromosome will completely cease to exist in ~5 million years. It's already down to some 45 genes (only 5 of them being of any real use) from 145 genes a mere 100,000 years ago.

So the trend should be anything but lack of women.

(and before anyone cries "math foul," there's a lot more on a chromosome than just genes. transcription factors, start and stop codons, and tuns of other non-coding DNA--and especially the Y which is some 10% gene as it currently stands)

I'm talking about gendercide when parents have offspring limits.