"Controlling" world populace

Figment · 2012-07-15, 06:29 AM

Overpopulation is bound to happen at some point. Many say it already is at that point. The Chinese even institute a one child policy (ironically leading to there being too few girls in China because people start messing with Gaussian distribution to continue their family lineage).

Land and resources are limited. What will be the consequences for economy, land, etc? Who will suffer first, how and why? What's next? How can you prevent it? How can you prolong the inevitable? Is there any point in food-aid if the next food shortage is only going to be worse?

Some questions to get you started.

**Malorn** · 2012-07-15, 12:01 PM

Meh.

Vash02 · 2012-07-15, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

When Germany needed more breeding room and implemented solutions to population control the rest of the world got upset.

But by all means continue, this will be an amusing thread.

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

Warborn · 2012-07-15, 02:48 PM

Nice that we went Godwin by the second post. Never stop posting, Malorn.

The real question is whether population will become an issue before something else makes it a non-issue. Problems that stretch really far into the future -- centuries in this case -- are hard to get excited about, because there are so many other things which could very easily affect the outcome in a major way. Perhaps solar/wind/nuclear/etc will see a major revolution in efficiency and vertical farms will take off and we'll be able to feed a population so large that it spills the banks of our living room. Or maybe not, and we'll have major famines world-wide.

Ait'al · 2013-03-15, 08:42 PM

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.

therandomone · 2012-07-15, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

When Germany needed more breeding room and implemented solutions to population control the rest of the world got upset.

But by all means continue, this will be an amusing thread.

Originally Posted by Malorn

Lot of anti-semite bigots here.

He's right, this is amusing.

Neurotoxin · 2012-07-15, 05:08 PM

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.

therandomone · 2012-07-15, 05:34 PM

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.

The problem that could arise from the second solution is that as mortality rates decrease the population could end up increasing anyway due to births> mortality. As that is the case in the US right now. Only a handful of nations have a negative population growth,such as Japan. The only way I could think of is to attack the motivations people have when deciding to have kids. You touched on one but there's always more than one reason. Another way to hit the financial side of things would be to remove the tax incentives. Granted that doesn't touch on the psychological side,but that one is much trickier and I'm not sure there's a clear cut way to do that.

Baneblade · 2012-07-15, 05:52 PM

Well with the increase in abortions, I think we are doing alright controlling our population.

Sirisian · 2012-07-15, 07:06 PM

I'd actually be for tax credits only up to two children over a lifetime (with obvious exceptions for naturally born twins and such). Getting the US even to start dropping in population would be wonderful. I think Neurotoxin hit on the most of the important ones to getting all countries to decrease their population.

Originally Posted by Baneblade

Well with the increase in abortions, I think we are doing alright controlling our population.

Getting sex education out to as many people as possible needs to be on the top of the list. Melinda Gates is a strong supporter of that. As mentioned healthcare is a huge part of it. If people have access to simple stuff like free birth control it goes a long way to reducing accidental pregnancies.

Another concept that is often missing is destroying cultural ideas of large families. There are some people in the world who believe having massive families is important, so targeting those cultural ways of thinking is very important.

There is a high ethical side to this. I mean are you restricting people's liberties by telling them they can't have 3 or more children unless they adopt? You'd have groups in the US who would fight teeth and nail against even the most reasonable forms of population control. We already have huge problems in the US for people that don't want sex education to be taught at all which is causing teen pregnancy issues in those states.

Warborn · 2012-07-15, 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by Baneblade

Well with the increase in abortions, I think we are doing alright controlling our population.

I didn't bother checking any other nations, but in both USA and Canada the abortion rate has been in decline for a while. It spiked a bit recently in the US but nothing major.

Baneblade · 2012-07-16, 12:46 AM

I was poking fun at our willingness to slaughter each other before we are born, but after that we would rather enslave, kill, or starve millions rather then make a proactive decision to make it obsolete.

Archonzero · 2012-08-19, 03:32 AM

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 · 2012-08-22, 10:20 AM

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 · 2012-08-22, 02:20 PM

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.