"Controlling" world populace

[MightyMan]

To me it seems like the Chinese way is the best way.
Think about it:
1. It is almost completely harmless.
2. It works at amazing speed (each generation, the amount of newborns is only half the amount of newborns in the previous generation (8 parents give birth to 4 children, the 4 children give birth to 2 children, and the 2 give birth to 1)).
3. The process can easily begin and stop at any point (when the population reaches the right amount, the government can just say that the rule is suspended).

The only minus I can think of is that this thing can never be applied to some of the religious population in the world (most of the Islamic population and about 20% of the Jewish population (who are more religious).

Now it may sound inhuman to control humans this way, but overpopulation is a real problem at this stage, and right now it seems like the best option.

[Warborn]

The birth rate in most first world nations is just barely above where it needs to be to sustain the existing population. The reason many of our nations are nonetheless growing quite a lot is due to immigration. China is an exception here, as it is small pockets of first world nestled amidst a sea of third world poverty and the population growth rates that come with it, so it trying to control its birth rate while it also attempts to uplift its poor regions and become a true first world nation are a bit of an anomaly.

The point is that population control doesn't come down to people in first world nations being limited in how many kids they can have. The people procreating the most are not in our nations.

[Harasus]

As technology and society advances, the population "limits" increases. Essentially, as long as we are not completely stagnant, overpopulation is not a problem. This can be anything from more efficient food production, to "terraforming" our own planet and using areas previously useless (Deserts, for example. Better use of the sea, aswell).

Also, the Moon/Mars are not far away.

Originally Posted by MightyMan

To me it seems like the Chinese way is the best way.
Think about it:
1. It is almost completely harmless.
2. It works at amazing speed (each generation, the amount of newborns is only half the amount of newborns in the previous generation (8 parents give birth to 4 children, the 4 children give birth to 2 children, and the 2 give birth to 1)).
3. The process can easily begin and stop at any point (when the population reaches the right amount, the government can just say that the rule is suspended).

Harmless? I think not. The Chinese kill off most of their girls, because having boys is simply more profitable (Stronger, working the fields better, the men inherit and all that stuff). So 8 parents give birth to 7 children, 4 of them are girls and 3 are killed at birth. You now have 1 girl and 3 boys, which means the 4 children will only give birth to 1 child.

I can see how harmless this is.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Harasus

Harmless? I think not.

That's really more of a cultural issue as discussed previously. It's existed way before the one-child policy and is very rooted in their culture.

[Figment]

Pretty much what Sirisian said.

Also, technology does not recreate natural resources like ore. Recycling only can do so much, but it has already come to the point where we start to mine old waste for metals, because it is cheaper than importing new ore that becomes ver scarce already. Especially gold and other precious metals. We can't keep finding new resources and we can't recycle 100%.

Like you can't keep ten rabbits on a square meter of grass for eternity. There is only going to be either so much grass, or only so much space for offspring. Worst case scenario: both at the same time.

[Harasus]

Even if it is a cultural issue, I would prefer not to have such a limitation on my freedom.

Originally Posted by Figment

Like you can't keep ten rabbits on a square meter of grass for eternity. There is only going to be either so much grass, or only so much space for offspring. Worst case scenario: both at the same time.

While that is not possible, you can make another floor (Where you plant grass and all the things rabbits need) above that square meter, where you can keep more rabbits. Innovation, technology.

Or you can keep rabbits on a ship (or some structure in the water) in the sea. Innovation and technology again.

In the medieval ages you kept cows in large fields, where they roamed both day and night. Now you can keep cows inside large houses and smaller fields to save room, and then plant crops around the field.
In the medieval ages most people lived out in the countryside, now more people live in cities. The limits are almost endless as long as technology advances.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Harasus

Even if it is a cultural issue, I would prefer not to have such a limitation on my freedom.



While that is not possible, you can make another floor (Where you plant grass and all the things rabbits need) above that square meter, where you can keep more rabbits. Innovation, technology.

Or you can keep rabbits on a ship (or some structure in the water) in the sea. Innovation and technology again.

In the medieval ages you kept cows in large fields, where they roamed both day and night. Now you can keep cows inside large houses and smaller fields to save room, and then plant crops around the field.
In the medieval ages most people lived out in the countryside, now more people live in cities. The limits are almost endless as long as technology advances.

You can't plant a tropical forest on top of a tropical forest. There are limits. Humanity should learn it has boundaries too, technology simply stalls us from reaching them.

[TheDAWinz]

We should nuke eachother

[Archonzero]

Originally Posted by Neurotoxin

Two ways. One is do nothing and let things sort themselves out however they do, but you can't complain about the results.

The other is the improvement of social conditions worldwide, such as that everyone's basic needs are fulfilled. Once everyone has food, clothing, housing, utilities, education, and medical care, we will have the social conditions that will make it much easier for people to want to have less children. Parents won't need to rely on their children as investments in their own future. With education, everyone can actually discuss the subject in a reasonable way.

Whoa.. whoa whoa.. hold it right thar, that sounds like dat dere socialism type of thinkin, you ain't one of dem dere commies r ya?

[RageMasterUK]

Whoever genuinely thinks we need to control and reduce world populations should take individual responsibility and start by shooting themselves in the face. If you think we have an overpopulation issue you should take the next logical step and solve the problem "in house". Maybe you might inspire a few of us. You might even go down as a hero. Either way you will have progressed the agenda you believe in.

Oh but maybe you meant that we should kill or sanction other people to reduce the population right? Not you?

You obviously dont believe in equality then, so it literally is just your selfish self-serving attitude that wants less people around you. Best thing is for you to go out and shoot other people in the face. Become a soldier, and kill other aggression filled murder-inclined individuals. Stop them, and yourself from breeding. Unsurprisingly Im completely cool with those who want to kill people killing each other. It cancels out the problem and they have consent and equality in that. If some humans have got to go it should be them first. I'll build an arena for you lot to do it safely, where all of us peaceful folk can be on the outside. But you probabally dont care about collateral damage so probabaly wouldnt use it.

Oh but maybe you're too chickenshit to take responsibility as an individual and actually try and fix this problem you've identified. Thats why your here talking about what other people should do. You're not willing to shoot yourself, to shoot someone else, you're not willing to individually go around irradiating mens testes, your not in a bio-lab inventing the next population culling disease, you're not the one convincing others to have less children. Your not the one enforcing the chinese model.

Either which way this topic smacks of inequality. There is no way that you would encourage any of these "control" measures to be placed directly on you, your friends and your family members.

They should birth-control other families, not mine.
They should kill other families, not mine.
They should irradiate other families reproductive organs, not mine.
They should convince other families to have less children, but not mine.
Hunger and famine for other people, not me.
I love the Chinese model for population control.... .... so long as it stays in China.
e.t.c

All discussion on this topic just adds up to a trespass against human consent somewhere down the line, therefore I do not endorse any form of "control".

-RageMasterUK

[Figment]

Originally Posted by RageMasterUK

Whoever genuinely thinks we need to control and reduce world populations should take individual responsibility and start by shooting themselves in the face. If you think we have an overpopulation issue you should take the next logical step and solve the problem "in house". Maybe you might inspire a few of us. You might even go down as a hero. Either way you will have progressed the agenda you believe in.

Oh but maybe you meant that we should kill or sanction other people to reduce the population right? Not you?

You obviously dont believe in equality then, so it literally is just your selfish self-serving attitude that wants less people around you. Best thing is for you to go out and shoot other people in the face. Become a soldier, and kill other aggression filled murder-inclined individuals. Stop them, and yourself from breeding. Unsurprisingly Im completely cool with those who want to kill people killing each other. It cancels out the problem and they have consent and equality in that. If some humans have got to go it should be them first. I'll build an arena for you lot to do it safely, where all of us peaceful folk can be on the outside. But you probabally dont care about collateral damage so probabaly wouldnt use it.

Oh but maybe you're too chickenshit to take responsibility as an individual and actually try and fix this problem you've identified. Thats why your here talking about what other people should do. You're not willing to shoot yourself, to shoot someone else, you're not willing to individually go around irradiating mens testes, your not in a bio-lab inventing the next population culling disease, you're not the one convincing others to have less children. Your not the one enforcing the chinese model.

Either which way this topic smacks of inequality. There is no way that you would encourage any of these "control" measures to be placed directly on you, your friends and your family members.

They should birth-control other families, not mine.
They should kill other families, not mine.
They should irradiate other families reproductive organs, not mine.
They should convince other families to have less children, but not mine.
Hunger and famine for other people, not me.
I love the Chinese model for population control.... .... so long as it stays in China.
e.t.c

All discussion on this topic just adds up to a trespass against human consent somewhere down the line, therefore I do not endorse any form of "control".

-RageMasterUK

I like how you think about KILL KILL KILL KILL.


But nice of you to not have read one post in this thread, because control does not actually include murder. It includes prevention, abstinence, safe sex (yay!), a financially secure environment and education.

And if youd didn't notice, my dearest UK citizen. You don't have 21 children families anymore in most of the UK and the remainder of Europe.

So uhm... it's actually already happening and it doesn't hurt anyone. Unless you want to say the UK is killing people all over the place by some mean government scheme since the early 20th century? What we're talking about though, is having it happen to those areas where population is still booming.

[Baneblade]

Rage's... ragepost is completely based on a presumption of NIMBY. Which makes everything he said void. I don't think anyone was advocating what he was blanket accusing everyone of.

[Ait'al]

Originally Posted by Vash02

This post failed so hard in terms of history and decency.

You do understand that restricting an argument of any type restricts reasoning altogether....

IT doesn't matter what you presume the point or desired action is. It is still an argument and any presumption including correct ones are your fault. That has nothing to do with the point of argument. If you cannot consider everything or you cannot consider something specific fully you simply are failing to reason it altogether...

Usually, if not always, people only become upset because they cannot go into an argument fully. And get upset at the point they can no longer be involved. For whichever reason or part they fail in or struggle with!

There should really be no rules on what arguments can exist(this is why this used to exist in acadamia, this also originaly included any form of argument including ones refereed to today as things like unproductive, which doesn't actually exist. It's illogical the productivity of an argument is only defined by the work the people in it can do not the subject or presentation of the information. Anything else is an absurdity. Argument is about gaining experience and practicing logic/reasoning skills. complaining about low reasoning skills doesn't do anything. It's only and indicator of something that ultimately is a larger problem outside of the immediate scope at best.)... The internet used to exemplify this but none of you had computers back then.

If you can argue for the life of someone you must also allow the argument for the death of someone. Or you have not and cannot consider something fully. That is the definition of irresponsibility if you have not considered it you cannot consider it fully to know what should be done. All you are doing or the moderators did was stop an argument merely because it had a certain starting perspective. Which I'm sure ironically is the actual lesson of the Nazis and Germany...... So you have failed to actually learn the lesson of history. Or begin to scratch it. As that is the end lesson in a line of lessons pretty much summing up Ironically the basis of U.S. law... and many older fashioned values.

This is technically one of the biggest problems in our, by that I mean the U.S., culture. Even though we have laws based on this understanding...

Society being squeamish has nothing to do with right or wrong, which by definition is correctness vs incorrectness(before jumping to a simple answer here remember what it takes to make sure you are correct). It's just a result of public laziness. Get why you cannot restrict an arguments contents and still not get a bad outcome?

This is part of the reason there was a little statement by people at the founding of our country about holding up the rights of other peoples beliefs regardless of if they are the same or contradict yours. No matter how severely. If you want the better example of the similarity to Germany. The famous quote is referencing this and it's consequences directly. First they came for the communists and I said nothing because I was not a communist.... that is why you hold up freedom of speech.

I'll forsake "spewing" my viewpoints on why farm work(ideally, not all "farm work". This is referencing having to learn it yourself and do the work that makes you learn it and being in the environment to do it. Not just physically doing the work, though that is important. Farm work is only an example of this because at it's extremity is an example of the practice of these skills) is a solvent/antithesis of this. But it goes into what work fields consist of and what is involved in learning them and to what degree of ability is produced vs what is required to think things out thoroughly(everything/as much as possible). If you look at older beliefs you will find that somewhat potentially coincidental.