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

[soulcougher73]

Screw all you want, but wrap that little wrangler if you aren't ready for kids. Yo, yo! Jimmy hats all 'round!

That to. I've done my part. No kids from me

 

[zinfamous]

Don't worry, the growing, proud, incel movement will inadvertently save us from this overpopulation problem.

 

[Muse]

Well, money doesn't die, people do. The population will go down when the death rate > birth rate.

Right, but i dont see that happening as we live longer and longer lives. I doubt people are going to stop screwing so...

Yes, but they don't stop dieing either. At some point death rate > birth rate. Of course, there can be a lot of cycles. Hey, someday another ice age is coming, that won't be easy. Epidemics are likely sooner or later. The earth can sustain only so much/many, the earth isn't getting bigger, the natural resources will dwindle in some areas.

I think we are better off if we embrace sustainability instead of indefinite population increase. So, yeah, a global movement to limit population growth to sustainable levels makes sense.

 

[pmv]

These are not easy to get at but as they exist they are subject to market forces. If the demand is there it will eventually become profitable to recover them. The same way there’s plenty of oil in the ground it’s just a matter of at what price is it reasonable to recover.



See above

Hang on a moment. I'm not sure the logic there is correct. If the price rises high enough it will become profitable to recover them - sure. But that requires _the price to rise high enough_. Which means it requires us all to pay that price. So we'll all be poorer (possibly a _lot_ poorer) than we are now. Isn't that the very outcome you are claiming can be avoided?

 

[pmv]

No. As living conditions improve birthrates go down.

The idiocy of Malthus and his disciples just never dies.

Firstly I don't think you can just write off 'Mathus' in that glib manner - it seems very complacent, like the guy jumping off a 100 story block who shouts 'so far, so good' as he passes the 50th floor. You can't just extrapolate and assume because problems have been avoided so far they always will be. That's just, well, idiocy. Human history is not a physics experiment, it's a contingent and ever-changing story.

Secondly, it's not universally true that 'as living conditions improve birthrates go down'. There seem to be other factors involved as well. Hence birthrates are still way above replacement level in places like Nigeria even as their per capita incomes have risen.

That said, I don't think there's a global crisis imminent. There are ways to reduce consumption per capita without disaster. But there are obvious risks from population growth in Africa most of all. That in particular will have to be managed somehow. The fact that so much of Europe seems to be reacting to immigration from that continent by turning fascist isn't a good start.

 

[Paratus]

Hang on a moment. I'm not sure the logic there is correct. If the price rises high enough it will become profitable to recover them - sure. But that requires _the price to rise high enough_. Which means it requires us all to pay that price. So we'll all be poorer (possibly a _lot_ poorer) than we are now. Isn't that the very outcome you are claiming can be avoided?

I was addressing the concern that some have that resources are running out. The resources are physically there and accessible. That means my point is still feasible. There are physically enough resources to improve quality of living for the rest of the world.

You are correct that there is risk associated with the price in accessing them.

 

[MrSquished]

Nobody wants to talk about euthanasia?

 

[pmv]

Nobody wants to talk about euthanasia?

Asia's birth rates have declined considerably. There aren't that many youth in asia, indeed in some parts of asia there aren't enough youth.

 

[Muse]

Yeah, I don't think it's going to happen any time soon, a world wide agreement. There is just so much disparity of conditions from one nation to another. There is no one world order, there may be accords of a sort. We had one, right? On climate change until Trump trashed it. Now he's trashing the Iran deal (he did these things largely to deal a slap to Obama, he hates him that badly he can't see beyond his wounded ego). The problem is huge, though. We know it. We are going willy nilly into a dangerous future. Will I support something? Sure. But with people like Trump around what of value is really going to be done? I don't think we're going to get very far until we till him into the ground.

 

[ivwshane]

Yeah, I don't think it's going to happen any time soon, a world wide agreement. There is just so much disparity of conditions from one nation to another. There is no one world order, there may be accords of a sort. We had one, right? On climate change until Trump trashed it. Now he's trashing the Iran deal (he did these things largely to deal a slap to Obama, he hates him that badly he can't see beyond his wounded ego). The problem is huge, though. We know it. We are going willy nilly into a dangerous future. Will I support something? Sure. But with people like Trump around what of value is really going to be done? I don't think we're going to get very far until we till him into the ground.

You'll need more than just getting trump out of office if you want to accomplish anything meaningful. Trump is just the visual lump that is the cancer in Washington.

 

[Muse]

You'll need more than just getting trump out of office if you want to accomplish anything meaningful. Trump is just the visual lump that is the cancer in Washington.

He's more than a symptom of a larger problem. Until he came along we had a few things going in the right direction. He's obviously trying to make sure that none of that survives him. He really is all by his lonesome a big part of the problem.

 

[ivwshane]

He's more than a symptom of a larger problem. Until he came along we had a few things going in the right direction. He's obviously trying to make sure that none of that survives him. He really is all by his lonesome a big part of the problem.

I disagree. Think of something only trump has done to put our democracy at risk and I'll show you Republican action that was similar that happened before trump.

 

[Muse]

I disagree. Think of something only trump has done to put our democracy at risk and I'll show you Republican action that was similar that happened before trump.

Trump is dumping the Iran accord, he dumped the climate accord. He may well destroy not the Democratic Party but the Republican Party itself. He's a one man wrecking crew. He's torpedoed American credibility to a degree that no one other person has come close to. To whom would you compare him? Bush(s)? Don't make me laugh. Reagan? Absurd. Ryan? Nobody! He majorly insulted every Republican on his way to the White House. Arguably he's a Russian agent, he may not have blood in his veins. There are rats the size of dobermans, cockroaches the size of cats under the Oval Office. They'll have to fumigate the White House after he packs his bags and scrams out of there.

 

[ivwshane]

Trump is dumping the Iran accord, he dumped the climate accord. He may well destroy not the Democratic Party but the Republican Party itself. He's a one man wrecking crew. He's torpedoed American credibility to a degree that no one other person has come close to. To whom would you compare him? Bush(s)? Don't make me laugh. Reagan? Absurd. Ryan? Nobody! He majorly insulted every Republican on his way to the White House. Arguably he's a Russian agent, he may not have blood in his veins. There are rats the size of dobermans, cockroaches the size of cats under the Oval Office. They'll have to fumigate the White House after he packs his bags and scrams out of there.

All of that pales in comparison to things that are actually being done. At worst, trump has severely damaged our reputation. That's easily fixable compared to dismantling of our democracy.

 

[Paladin3]

Nobody wants to talk about euthanasia?

As a method to control population, hell no! But if someone is of sound mind and not so sound body, and wants to end their pain, I see no reason not to allow it.

I had a beloved aunt who died very slowly of cancer when I was a younger man. I will never forgive the Catholic teaching to embrace suffering that kept her alive and in pain so long. My wife fought cancer for 19 months, but when she was ready to let go the end came quickly and we were all very thankful for it. Those who seek to stop folks with nothing but pain to look forward to from ending their lives are monsters.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Earth is overpopulated. I have long said this. The answer is higher income and opportunities to earn for all, even those with criminal records.

Richer people tend to procreate less. Others make babbys all over the damn place and usually dont stick around to raise them.

 

[MrSquished]

As a method to control population, hell no! But if someone is of sound mind and not so sound body, and wants to end their pain, I see no reason not to allow it.

I had a beloved aunt who died very slowly of cancer when I was a younger man. I will never forgive the Catholic teaching to embrace suffering that kept her alive and in pain so long. My wife fought cancer for 19 months, but when she was ready to let go the end came quickly and we were all very thankful for it. Those who seek to stop folks with nothing but pain to look forward to from ending their lives are monsters.

Sorry to hear about your experiences brother. I do of course mean it as a way for folks to willingly end their pain and not to control the population - merely implying that it being a well-regulated and legal option will by extension also help regulate the population as a side effect. It is a slippery slope to make sure that the system isn't abused but I think it is very possible. I think living wills can be made to deal with these situations when they arise. It just has to all make sense but I think as adults we can make this very important decision with guidance.

 

[Paladin3]

Sorry to hear about your experiences brother. I do of course mean it as a way for folks to willingly end their pain and not to control the population - merely implying that it being a well-regulated and legal option will by extension also help regulate the population as a side effect. It is a slippery slope to make sure that the system isn't abused but I think it is very possible. I think living wills can be made to deal with these situations when they arise. It just has to all make sense but I think as adults we can make this very important decision with guidance.

I agree with you, and thank you for the condolences. I'm always hesitant to write about losing loved ones because I don't want to seem like I'm exploiting their deaths to make a point. Gotta love 'em while they are here and remember them with love after they pass on.

 

[Thebobo]

Chances are there will be another extinction event that will cull our population naturally. be it Asteroid, Super nova, Pole shift, Sun storm. It's happened before and it will happen again. Any second from now we could be hit with gamma rays from an exploding star and wipe out most if not all life. Same goes for high energy solar flare from our son.

These are just the recent extinction events.

Holocene extinction - 10,000 BCE
Quaternary extinction events - 640,000, 74,000, and 13,000 years ago

 

[realibrad]

Chances are there will be another extinction event that will cull our population naturally. be it Asteroid, Super nova, Pole shift, Sun storm. It's happened before and it will happen again. Any second from now we could be hit with gamma rays from an exploding star and wipe out most if not all life. Same goes for high energy solar flare from our son.

These are just the recent extinction events.

Holocene extinction - 10,000 BCE
Quaternary extinction events - 640,000, 74,000, and 13,000 years ago

I'm not sure that a pole shift is going to cause an extinction event. It will hurt, and cancer rates will rise, but life should go on quite easily.

 

[Thebobo]

I'm not sure that a pole shift is going to cause an extinction event. It will hurt, and cancer rates will rise, but life should go on quite easily.

You are correct but many animals could be confused as well

 

[realibrad]

You are correct but many animals could be confused as well

Oh, you mean like migratory animals? I suppose. We will for sure feel some pain, but I don't think it will be an extinction level event.

I think our next big issue will be drinkable water.

 

[woolfe9998]

Chances are there will be another extinction event that will cull our population naturally. be it Asteroid, Super nova, Pole shift, Sun storm. It's happened before and it will happen again. Any second from now we could be hit with gamma rays from an exploding star and wipe out most if not all life. Same goes for high energy solar flare from our son.

These are just the recent extinction events.

Holocene extinction - 10,000 BCE
Quaternary extinction events - 640,000, 74,000, and 13,000 years ago

Natural disasters that would cause the death of enough humans to make a difference in the overall population picture are too infrequent to be terribly relevant to this discussion. If a large number of humans die in a short period of time, it will most likely be directly caused by human behavior. Nuclear war being the most plausible example.

 

[Muse]

Nuclear war being the most plausible example.

I'd think a pandemic of epic proportions would be also in that realm of plausibility, possibly much more plausible. Very different things, both with very unknown problematic aftermath depending on the intensity level.

 

[woolfe9998]

I'd think a pandemic of epic proportions would be also in that realm of plausibility, possibly much more plausible. Very different things, both with very unknown problematic aftermath depending on the intensity level.

Could be. I don't know much about the probability of a pandemic occurring. What is obvious, however, is that nuclear war is inevitable. It's only a question of when, and to what degree of severity. The chances of nukes not being used this century are pretty low. Nuclear weapons are proliferating and the probability is that they're going to eventually be used. The best case scenario is that say 1-3 cities are destroyed, with 7 figure death tolls, and this is so horrific that nukes don't get used for at least another 100 years after. But it could be a lot worse than that.