Would you support some sort of global initiative to slow population growth

[Hayabusa Rider]

Go to bed gramps.

Another case of you owning your own ass.

 

[MrSquished]

Birth control. Education. Abortion rights. Legalize Euthanasia.

 

[ivwshane]

Another case of you owning your own ass.

Whatever makes you sleep better.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Whatever makes you sleep better.

I'm having fun now.

Finding the first reference to the word genocide in this thread...

genocide

Get out of your moms basement

 

[Paratus]

Population growth will take care of itself as countries and regions get on par with 1st world countries. Therefore I support policies which enable that to happen faster rather than later.

Exactly.

Poverty reduction leads to the only ethical way to reduce global population.

From one of my posts on global warming solutions:

First up global population. From UN projections we are looking most likely at slowing growth but still peeking at 10+billion by 2050.

The breakdown shows that most of the gain is coming from developing nations. Developed nations actually have slowly declining or stagnating populations:

When looking at the break down by country, the countries with the highest birth rates also have some of the lowest kWh per person per year.
List of Countries by Birth Rate

Table of Countries by kWh per capita per year

For example:

Ethiopia has a rate of natural increase (birth rate - death rate) of over 32 but only 52 kWh per person per year

Italy on the other hand has a slightly negative rate of natural increase of -1.26 and over 5500 kWh per capita per year

Assume a 20-30% increase in efficiency and aim to bring everyone up to the level of Italy and not necessarily the US and it’s probably doable. Once past the hump in population and we’re probably set.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm having fun now.

Finding the first reference to the word genocide in this thread...



Get out of your moms basement

You should look up these words while you are at it; reading comprehension

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You should look up these words while you are at it; reading comprehension

That's your best justification you have, which is to say none. But the thing which is most telling isn't your logical fallicies, but your insistance on picking a fight over something that's demonstrably a real concern by making it yours and disregarding, no attacking people when you can't argue the facts. Even when discussing a disaster in the making that virtually every semi-educated person could understand you can't stick to the subject, you have to attack with "genocide" nonsense.

Yer done.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Exactly.

Poverty reduction leads to the only ethical way to reduce global population.

From one of my posts on global warming solutions:


Assume a 20-30% increase in efficiency and aim to bring everyone up to the level of Italy and not necessarily the US and it’s probably doable. Once past the hump in population and we’re probably set.

Problem with that though is the higher the income the more resources they use. That would need to be resolved, and not just energy but raw materials too. More lithium needed for batteries for instance. More plastic. More everything. And with wealth comes the demand for more meat which is horrible for the environment. It can definitely help in terms of growth rate but comes with its own set of issues.

 

[ivwshane]

That's your best justification you have, which is to say none. But the thing which is most telling isn't your logical fallicies, but your insistance on picking a fight over something that's demonstrably a real concern by making it yours and disregarding, no attacking people when you can't argue the facts. Even when discussing a disaster in the making that virtually every semi-educated person could understand you can't stick to the subject, you have to attack with "genocide" nonsense.

Yer done.

Lol. I argued the facts and another poster who was arguing with me had to concede the point. Hell, even another poster agreed with me and supplied the data, something you haven't even bothered to address. In fact, the only thing you've managed to do so far is straw man the conversation to death.

I welcome your next old man rant about nothing I've said.

 

[ivwshane]

Problem with that though is the higher the income the more resources they use. That would need to be resolved, and not just energy but raw materials too. More lithium needed for batteries for instance. More plastic. More everything. And with wealth comes the demand for more meat which is horrible for the environment. It can definitely help in terms of growth rate but comes with its own set of issues.

Yes, that's a technological problem and can be addressed, as I stated earlier, by electing politicians who support policies that make the technologies not only possible but also make it required.

Knowing your posting history though, I'm not even sure I understand why you care about this issue. Are you now a "big government" liberal or do you think the free market will be clamoring for expensive, as of yet invented, technology and synthetic food products all on its own?

 

[UglyCasanova]

Your arguement are offering very little to the overal conversation though, I gave up discussing the growth rate because it really wasn’t relevant to the main topic and it became clear that no matter what was said you’d remain argumentative on it just because. I welcome your opinion I just wish you’d flesh it out more and not be so combative and rude when doing so.

 

[alcoholbob]

How do you enforce it? Best way is mandatory contraception, but how does one make that happen? Do you arrest violators? Take their children over the limit?

If the world was a rational place people would limit their offspring to two at least until the population declines to sustainable levels.

God knows we have anything but that.

China's one child policy was pretty effective and it was purely a financial incentive, i.e., rich people could have more kids, they just had to pay for all social services and schooling. You don't have to go down the path of 19th century American eugenics.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Yes, that's a technological problem and can be addressed, as I stated earlier, by electing politicians who support policies that make the technologies not only possible but also make it required.

Knowing your posting history though, I'm not even sure I understand why you care about this issue. Are you now a "big government" liberal or do you think the free market will be clamoring for expensive, as of yet invented, technology and synthetic food products all on its own?

Technology requires resources though. We’d honestly be better off with less tech from an environmental standpoint. Think of what all goes into making everything involved in our day to day lives. Even "green" tech really isn’t, it’s just less bad. I do t think politicians can solve the problem of finite resources.

As far as my position and post history I’m not even sure what to say. I hold a variety of opinions and don’t stick to any particular party line.

 

[ivwshane]

Your arguement are offering very little to the overal conversation though, I gave up discussing the growth rate because it really wasn’t relevant to the main topic and it became clear that no matter what was said you’d remain argumentative on it just because. I welcome your opinion I just wish you’d flesh it out more and not be so combative and rude when doing so.

So when asked how would we reduce population growth and I gave you my answer, it was me that was being combative?

Like the racial threads you post in, I don't think you are interested in a discussion at all.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

China's one child policy was pretty effective and it was purely a financial incentive, i.e., rich people could have more kids, they just had to pay for all social services and schooling. You don't have to go down the path of 19th century American eugenics.

That's a possibility that has merit. Personally I'd rather there not even be a need for discussion but people being what they are and the cultures and situations they find themselves in renders that as extremely unlikey.

 

[UglyCasanova]

That’s odd since here I am discussing, and I took the approach I did in the racism thread so that an actual discussion could take place (and was imo successful). I’m sure you’re a smart guy but you and a couple other posters on here have your default switch set on "attack" and I don’t get why. Name calling and attacks don’t really bolster your cause, I’d argue they demean it to be honest.

 

[ivwshane]

China's one child policy was pretty effective and it was purely a financial incentive, i.e., rich people could have more kids, they just had to pay for all social services and schooling. You don't have to go down the path of 19th century American eugenics.

Pretty effective? By what measure?

(forgive the Gizmodo link, lol)
https://io9.gizmodo.com/did-chinas-one-child-policy-actually-reduce-population-1511784972

 

[ivwshane]

That’s odd since here I am discussing, and I took the approach I did in the racism thread so that an actual discussion could take place (and was imo successful). I’m sure you’re a smart guy but you and a couple other posters on here have your default switch set on "attack" and I don’t get why. Name calling and attacks don’t really bolster your cause, I’d argue they demean it to be honest.

They demean it because you allow it to and instead of focusing on merits you focus on the unimportant. Its how I know when you aren't interested in an actual discussion.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Well I’m glad you’re around to let me know what I’m interested in or "concerned" about. Will be my last reply to you on this, I welcome a discussion on the original topic though.

 

[ivwshane]

Technology requires resources though. We’d honestly be better off with less tech from an environmental standpoint. Think of what all goes into making everything involved in our day to day lives. Even "green" tech really isn’t, it’s just less bad. I do t think politicians can solve the problem of finite resources.

As far as my position and post history I’m not even sure what to say. I hold a variety of opinions and don’t stick to any particular party line.

Yes and some resources are renewable and some are not. Yes current technology uses a lot of resources, but you have conceded that technology we used even 20 years ago, uses less resources (think of LCD vs tube displays, or 14nm cpus vs 250nm) than they do today.

Politicians aren't the ones who need to solve the issues, they are the ones that have to put in place policies that encourage those that can solve such problems.

 

[UglyCasanova]

I’m not sure that modern tech utilizes less resources but they are designed to be more efficient and use less energy. Which is great, but we are still having to use finite resources to construct it. Cars for example, electric is becoming the new norm but in doing so is going to put a tremendous amount of pressure on lithium reserves. Plus the impact of shipping that from Bolivia to wherever.

The energy component is great because the less of it we use the better. But with the sheer number of people on Earth continuing to rise there are just that many more that will demand these products. And as we raise people out of poverty and they have money to buy more stuff thats just that much more pressure on finite resources.

Imo the havoc we are doing to the environment shows that there’s clearly too many of us as it is now. We can pass green legislation but at the end of the day having billions of humans is extremely harmful for the environment and there’s not really any way to get around that (the best we can hope for is to make the impact less bad). Now add a couple billion more.

 

[Muse]

Haven't read the whole thread yet, but in the first 20 or so posts I'm seeing no mention of the "right to life"ers. To me, they are in denial. It would be so helpful in dealing with this huge problem rationally if their effect could be neutralized. It's hard to get things done when there's a huge block of human/political capital opposing you. Maybe we are already toast.

I suppose you can see that I would support something. It's been my thinking for decades. Call it propaganda, call it enlightenment, whatever. I think abortion on demand is in the cards... some people have to be dragged ass-backwards into the future. The Chinese evidently weren't stopped by right-to-lifers, they saw an imperative.

At some point the environment and the things we need breaks down. Then what?

It's pretty obvious to me that earth can't sustain unchecked population growth. If the population isn't kept at sustainable levels there will be unfortunate consequences -- wars, famine, disease, not to mention unlivable conditions. Arguably we already have a lot of that downside already.

Genocide is the last thing we want. Famine, war, disease are preferable. They are awful but less deleterious spiritually. What is really preferable is dealing with the situation rationally. The human race is capable of that. Will it happen? Yes and no... we'll see.

Thread on songs about overpopulation.

 

[cytg111]

Let’s say some sort of agreement passed amongst all nations on Earth where free access to birth control and abortions given plus some sort of policy like China's previous one. Maybe two children instead of one (no abortions after the sex is determined unless there is a deformity of life threatening condition to prevent the killing of females) and if you just have one and then sterilized you get a monetary bonus.

Overpopulation is going to drive us to this point eventually anyways and I don’t think it wise to bank on another green revolution to save us. Unfortunately we’ve become addicted to the ponzu schemes of continued growth to fund ourselves so adopting this is going to be very painful to the global economy. There will have to be a cultural shift in many countries to do more multigenerational families under one roof type living rather to help support the elderly.

Anyways do you think population growth is something that humanity needs to be concerned about and if so what solutions would you pursue.

That drives right into some of my own motivations for leaning left, being a globalist and progressive.
The out of control population density is also directly correlated with climate change, climate change will in turn reduce the livable surface area and thus in a feedback loop continue to increase population density. This is obviously unsustainable, and it is coming to hit us hard. Soon.
Here is the thing, for democracies, and other forms of governing, to come together and agree on population control it mandates a certain backing in the supporting population, this only makes sense if said population has a certain educational level... You can tell an ape that it needs to stop the fucking but I guarantee you that it will not, and without education we are just apes. That drives us back into the next bad feedback loop that is ALSO spinning out of control, as resources get scarce and/or people get left behind, also in the name of a progressive globalization, education is going down too and thus eroding support in the population that will in turn send the middle finger to birth and co2 control.
Societies will be left with undesirable methods for culling the herd and it will properly happen indirectly, maybe with a nuke fest?
You can argue the gritty details in the above but the overall outcome is going to be same. I firmly believe this to be true.
We are facing BIG problems that we can only hope to solve together. All of us. Together. And it is happening right now, that is why Trumps nationalistic approach is a disaster and why Obama was so good, why Russias actions all over the west is in direct opposition to what we need to achieve : Unity. If we do not achieve this unity and make BIG solutions together I guarantee you that a culling is coming. You want that? I do not.

 

[Paladin3]

Education is the only thing that will save us. Sex ed to be specific. I don't know why so many young men and women refuse to use condoms or other forms of birth control when they are clearly not ready to have children. When you hear about 20 year old punks with multiple baby-mamas I want to personally kick them in the balls until they no longer work. Same for anyone who doesn't think it's in society's best interest to subsidize the availability of birth control. Not to mention good birth control education and availability would cut down on the need for abortions, which need to remain legal anyway.

 

[cytg111]

Education is the only thing that will save us. Sex ed to be specific. I don't know why so many young men and women refuse to use condoms or other forms of birth control when they are clearly not ready to have children. When you hear about 20 year old punks with multiple baby-mamas I want to personally kick them in the balls until they no longer work. Same for anyone who doesn't think it's in society's best interest to subsidize the availability of birth control. Not to mention good birth control education and availability would cut down on the need for abortions, which need to remain legal anyway.

100pct agree.