Is global population control now a good option?

[0roo0roo]

us isn't so bad, look at biomass/land/carbon sink per person and places in europe look like the ridiculous ones.

and yes this is the elephant in the room. poor countries breeding like rabbits easily nullify any efforts of the west to do anything. the whole politically correct thing of giving aid without requiring birth control in the past has got to stop

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: torpid
I'm not a big fan of delaying the inevitable as a solution to the inevitable. Population control would only reduce the imminence of our doom. We need to find permanent solutions to our problems.

..well we could start by stop subsidizing population growth i.e. no dependant tax deductions, home mortage deduction and public education tution. The full cost of having/raising a family must be shouldered on those who choose such endeavors.

A society MUST incent the production of children otherwise there would be no new workers and that society would fail.

..we're at the point where we need quality not quanity. Do the math. In 1958 california had 9 million people. in 2009 we now have 30+ million.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Oh dear God, are there still people on earth so stupid that they buy into that Paul Ehrlich nonsense? Global population is not an issue, never has been an issue and in the next dozen generations will not be an issue. Growth is slowing and is expected to plateau soon and then decrease. It's not close to being overpopulated and is not close to approaching the limits of most resources. The earth is actually VERY sparsely populated and has enough unused farmland available to feed the current population a dozen times over.

 

[amdhunter]

Only in the case of minorities, but not the good ones like the Japanese.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Oh dear God, are there still people on earth so stupid that they buy into that Paul Ehrlich nonsense? Global population is not an issue, never has been an issue and in the next dozen generations will not be an issue. Growth is slowing and is expected to plateau soon and then decrease. It's not close to being overpopulated and is not close to approaching the limits of most resources. The earth is actually VERY sparsely populated and has enough unused farmland available to feed the current population a dozen times over.

Don't bring common sense into sensationalism.

And besides, if it ever did happen mother nature has a means of correcting such things.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: torpid
I'm not a big fan of delaying the inevitable as a solution to the inevitable. Population control would only reduce the imminence of our doom. We need to find permanent solutions to our problems.

..well we could start by stop subsidizing population growth i.e. no dependant tax deductions, home mortage deduction and public education tution. The full cost of having/raising a family must be shouldered on those who choose such endeavors.

Why don't we start taxing poor people for having children instead of rewarding them with more welfare benefits the more children they have?

 

[Fayd]

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.

god would see through such a cheap trick!

edit: from a game theory point of view, the US needs to step up its game on child creation. we're falling behind.

people who are able to support their children need to be encouraged to have more children...while morons who cant support their children need to be discouraged from having more.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Fayd

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.

god would see through such a cheap trick!

edit: from a game theory point of view, the US needs to step up its game on child creation. we're falling behind.

people who are able to support their children need to be encouraged to have more children...while morons who cant support their children need to be discouraged from having more.

See my post above. Tax poor people for having children, give tax breaks to middle class and above for having children (which I guess is the status quo).

 

[Fayd]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Fayd

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.

god would see through such a cheap trick!

edit: from a game theory point of view, the US needs to step up its game on child creation. we're falling behind.

people who are able to support their children need to be encouraged to have more children...while morons who cant support their children need to be discouraged from having more.

See my post above. Tax poor people for having children, give tax breaks to middle class and above for having children (which I guess is the status quo).

while i agree that would be the easiest and most effective (simple incentives result in the greatest effect) it's not particularly easy to stomach through politics.

another idea would be to end welfare incentives for child production, provide free/subsidized contraceptives for a low income bracket. (and HEAVILY advertise as such) advertise the joy of childcare or some other bullshit like that for upper level, or offer incentives to companies for allowing their females leave for raising children.

it's bullshit that it's nowhere near as effective as a simple tax incentive/disincentive, but it's easier to stomach politically.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: torpid
I'm not a big fan of delaying the inevitable as a solution to the inevitable. Population control would only reduce the imminence of our doom. We need to find permanent solutions to our problems.

..well we could start by stop subsidizing population growth i.e. no dependant tax deductions, home mortage deduction and public education tution. The full cost of having/raising a family must be shouldered on those who choose such endeavors.

Why don't we start taxing poor people for having children instead of rewarding them with more welfare benefits the more children they have?

..put a life time cap on welfare/foodstamps instead of the open end legacy disaster we've grown comfortable with. You don't have to tax them. just make it understood that having kids is a financial decision.

 

[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.

 

[91TTZ]

Dumber people reproduce at a higher rate than smarter people. Idiocracy is real.

We need to eliminate welfare and the problem will solve itself.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Oh dear God, are there still people on earth so stupid that they buy into that Paul Ehrlich nonsense? Global population is not an issue, never has been an issue and in the next dozen generations will not be an issue. Growth is slowing and is expected to plateau soon and then decrease. It's not close to being overpopulated and is not close to approaching the limits of most resources. The earth is actually VERY sparsely populated and has enough unused farmland available to feed the current population a dozen times over.

Don't bring common sense into sensationalism.

And besides, if it ever did happen mother nature has a means of correcting such things.

no ones talking about starvation

yeesh, talk about missing the point.

its about how it relates to global warming and its supposed solutions

 

[Auggie]

Too much stupid here.

 

[Amused]

It never ceases to amaze me how quickly and easily people slide into totalitarianism.

Everyone seems to have the answer, and that answer always seems to be controlling what other people do.

And so, in the name of every new manufactured crisis (Think of the children! The earth is dying! Cost to society!), they give up that control to their leaders... and we lose our freedoms one by one.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
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.

Or pay people for permanent sterilization (hell even make it just free and that would be good).

OP, global warming (man-made) has not been proven first off. Secondly, China is no where close to "a possible collapse" because of a birth rate issue. Third, the US does not have the largest carbon footprint per capita. C02 emissions for countries per capita (US is 10th). List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita. We do put out the most CO2, but China is catching up quick and will pass us soon enough. Total CO2 emissions for each country. That link has 2004 for the year it looked at, and I do believe China has surpassed us in the past 4 years. I can't seem to find the numbers for greehouse gas emissions combined though (methane and others cause much more greenhouse warming effects then CO2).

I am a fan of population control personally, but not for the reasons listed. I just don't like people, and the less of them there are the less I have to deal with them . In a more rational POV, when we have millions who die from natural disasters when each one hits I think that's the Earth's way of helping to curb our population.

 

[IronWing]

Permanent tax credits for voluntary sterilization, end all tax deductions/credits for having children, and require performance bonding for parents.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Oh dear God, are there still people on earth so stupid that they buy into that Paul Ehrlich nonsense? Global population is not an issue, never has been an issue and in the next dozen generations will not be an issue. Growth is slowing and is expected to plateau soon and then decrease. It's not close to being overpopulated and is not close to approaching the limits of most resources. The earth is actually VERY sparsely populated and has enough unused farmland available to feed the current population a dozen times over.

Don't bring common sense into sensationalism.

And besides, if it ever did happen mother nature has a means of correcting such things.

no ones talking about starvation

yeesh, talk about missing the point.

its about how it relates to global warming and its supposed solutions

Global warming is a bigger joke than Paul Ehrlich's overpopulation theories. Yeesh, talk about missing a brain.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Any resource shortages can easily be resolved through continuously improving technology and removing artificial scarcity schemes. Population is not an issue and won't be in our lifetime unless we make it an issue.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Oh dear God, are there still people on earth so stupid that they buy into that Paul Ehrlich nonsense? Global population is not an issue, never has been an issue and in the next dozen generations will not be an issue. Growth is slowing and is expected to plateau soon and then decrease. It's not close to being overpopulated and is not close to approaching the limits of most resources. The earth is actually VERY sparsely populated and has enough unused farmland available to feed the current population a dozen times over.

Don't bring common sense into sensationalism.

And besides, if it ever did happen mother nature has a means of correcting such things.

no ones talking about starvation

yeesh, talk about missing the point.

its about how it relates to global warming and its supposed solutions

Global warming is a bigger joke than Paul Ehrlich's overpopulation theories. Yeesh, talk about missing a brain.

LOL, that guy came to my university to give a lecture.

He's been wrong every decade since the 60's and especially about predicting population crises since the 80s...

What a crass utilitarian.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner

He's been wrong every decade since the 60's and especially about predicting population crises since the 80s...

What a crass utilitarian.

Population is not a huge problem, but population density is getting to be. Our cities have tripled and quadrupled in population but only increased in size marginally. Part of the problem is that it is getting less and less effective to keep making cities larger. What we really need to do is build some new cities and move population to them. But I have no idea how we would go about actually accomplishing such a task.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.