• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Will we ever need population control?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Eli
The day the government institutes mandatory population control is the day I take up arms and fight back.
Click to expand...

Hey looky here, and I'M the anti-government zealot! Ha!
 
Originally posted by: Ready
It seems like here in California, despite $400,000 houses becoming the norm, there is no sign of
the demand going down. Seems like more and more people just show up every year and the new houses being built is not keeping up with the demand. Seems like people from other states complain about how people from california drove up the property prices in their states. Gas prices at a all time high. I just read an article a few weeks aga (forgot where) that talks about how the food demand in this country will soon overwhelm the amount of food we can produce. Beer prices are slightly higher. The frequency spectrum is quickly overflooding.
Land, Gas, Food, Beer, and Frequencies....Blue Fin Tunas....seems like everything is running out.

Is there a point in which the resource will not support this growing population? If so, will we be forced to impliment some sort of population control policly?
Just curious.
Click to expand...

One of the main causes of enormous costs in California is government taxation and regulation. Look at all the gas taxes that we pay, that alone increases the cost of everything else that is brought in.

Housing costs are due to the fact that it costs SO many FRTs and time to get a permit to build a house. The environmentalists will have us living in the stone age before they are satisfied.

Let's not forget the energy crises debacle either. Caused by regulations relating to the building of new power plants, once again brought about by our wonderful environmentalist "friends".
 
errr... supply and demand. if the houses are 400k then obviously there are people who can afford it. the people that can't can move to a new state where they can afford housing. this reduces the number of people in CA to the point where people lose jobs because of the declining economy and in turn houses become cheaper eventually to the point where people from other states move in because the homes don't cost 400k. or the government can build more low-cost housing so people can pay lots of money for this type of housing and live in poverty (whatever the poverty level is considered in CA since it varies from state to state)....

i dunno... i'm just blabbing ... taking a break from studying for my o chem final.
 
America produces wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more food than we can consume. As for land, have you ever drive across America at all? I have, I spent most of my time staring at vast, isolated, uninhabited land.
 
Renting, waiting to pounce.

Really, I will work and wait. When it all falls out, I'll have lots of money and lots of financing for it.
I'll buy 5-6 rentals, and rided the next wave. I can see that far, but frankly, its a few years out. 🙂
 
paving over all of nature is a good thing.

but seriously... its not exactly linear... sure we're big and make lots of food, but increasing our size lowers amount of agricultural land, it lowers the amount of fresh water avaliable, waste lowers it further... etc
 
We need to stop illegal immigration mainly. Illegals should just be flat out deported.

As for house prices, I think there is a bubble and there will be a correction soon.
 
By 2600 we will be standing shoulder to shoulder so yes some population control will be necassary. The thing to worry about in the meantime is the depletion of recources by large developing nations. We must destroy China in order keep the American dream alive.
 
I think there already is population control ... and it's called diseases, such as AIDS and cancer. If we didn't have these diseases, do you realize how overpopulated even MORE the country would be? As bad as diseases are, if we did not have them, there would be way too many people around.

I personally think they could find a cure to AIDS and even cancer. I mean we can clone animals, fly onto the moon, and all this other crap, but we can't find cures for diseases that have been around forever? And why are these diseases not having any cures? My 2 reason:

1. There is no money in a cure, there is money in 'treatment' where people spend X amount of $$$ on stuff once a month, and the like.
2. It helps balance out the population.

I by no means am in the science field (aside from computer science) to be one as to say that its easier or harder to find a cure to a disease than it is to clone someone, because I'm sure they aren't even closely related at all.

All I'm saying is that I think diseases and stuff, and not having cures for major ones, is part of the way that there is kind of a population control.
 
Originally posted by: purbeast0
I think there already is population control ... and it's called diseases, such as AIDS and cancer. If we didn't have these diseases, do you realize how overpopulated even MORE the country would be? As bad as diseases are, if we did not have them, there would be way too many people around.

I personally think they could find a cure to AIDS and even cancer. I mean we can clone animals, fly onto the moon, and all this other crap, but we can't find cures for diseases that have been around forever? And why are these diseases not having any cures? My 2 reason:

1. There is no money in a cure, there is money in 'treatment' where people spend X amount of $$$ on stuff once a month, and the like.
2. It helps balance out the population.

I by no means am in the science field (aside from computer science) to be one as to say that its easier or harder to find a cure to a disease than it is to clone someone, because I'm sure they aren't even closely related at all.

All I'm saying is that I think diseases and stuff, and not having cures for major ones, is part of the way that there is kind of a population control.
Click to expand...
Uh, there is money in a cure also.

Come on, do you really think the human race as a whole is that short sighted and kniving? There's no way all the research groups in the world are purposefully hindering the discovery of cures for diseases, that's obsurdity.

You give us way too much credit. We may be an advanced civilization, but we still have a lot to learn. Remember, we're only like 50 years into the technological revolution. The medical revolution follows closely behind.
 
Originally posted by: fredtam
By 2600 we will be standing shoulder to shoulder so yes some population control will be necassary. The thing to worry about in the meantime is the depletion of recources by large developing nations. We must destroy China in order keep the American dream alive.
Click to expand...

By 2600 I'll probably have been dead for ten or twenty years, so I'll let others deal with it.

I imagine that the China situaion will be taken care of when Taiwan regains control of the rebel state.
 
Originally posted by: purbeast0
I think there already is population control ... and it's called diseases, such as AIDS and cancer. If we didn't have these diseases, do you realize how overpopulated even MORE the country would be? As bad as diseases are, if we did not have them, there would be way too many people around.

I personally think they could find a cure to AIDS and even cancer. I mean we can clone animals, fly onto the moon, and all this other crap, but we can't find cures for diseases that have been around forever? And why are these diseases not having any cures? My 2 reason:

1. There is no money in a cure, there is money in 'treatment' where people spend X amount of $$$ on stuff once a month, and the like.
2. It helps balance out the population.

I by no means am in the science field (aside from computer science) to be one as to say that its easier or harder to find a cure to a disease than it is to clone someone, because I'm sure they aren't even closely related at all.

All I'm saying is that I think diseases and stuff, and not having cures for major ones, is part of the way that there is kind of a population control.
Click to expand...

Aids is a virus. There is no cure for virii. Not even the common cold. How would they come up with something to cure something as complex as aids when they cant even stop flues and colds?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top