"Controlling" world populace - Page 4 - PlanetSide Universe
PSU Social Facebook Twitter Twitter YouTube Steam TwitchTV
PlanetSide Universe
PSU: Google? Hamma-gle!
Home Forum Chat Wiki Social AGN PS2 Stats
Notices
Go Back   PlanetSide Universe > General Forums > Political Debate Forum

 
Click here to go to the first VIP post in this thread.  
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 2012-07-17, 03:41 PM   [Ignore Me] #46
ziegler
Master Sergeant
 
ziegler's Avatar
 
Re: "Controlling" world populace


Originally Posted by Sirisian View Post
Works well for what? We currently use eugenics to detect possible defects in an offspring's genetic makeup for things like downs syndrome, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell disease, fragile X syndrome, etc. Eugenics isn't for population control. It's for human controlled evolution. This thread is more concerned with population control such as one-child policies.
I see selective breeding going hand in hand with population control, probably my agriculture background. If you are going to limit the reproductive cycle, then it only makes sense that the ones you are allowing to be birthed, should be of the highest caliber. Surely you dont propose if you are going to limit the amount of births, that it is acceptable to allow inferior traits to propogate?
ziegler is offline  
Old 2012-07-17, 04:02 PM   [Ignore Me] #47
Sirisian
Colonel
 
Sirisian's Avatar
 
Re: "Controlling" world populace


Originally Posted by ziegler View Post
I see selective breeding going hand in hand with population control, probably my agriculture background. If you are going to limit the reproductive cycle, then it only makes sense that the ones you are allowing to be birthed, should be of the highest caliber. Surely you dont propose if you are going to limit the amount of births, that it is acceptable to allow inferior traits to propogate?
Sirisian is offline  
Old 2012-07-18, 03:26 AM   [Ignore Me] #48
Kupo
Corporal
 
Kupo's Avatar
 
Re: "Controlling" world populace


anyone read the book, the giver? could make the world liek that lol
Kupo is offline  
Old 2012-07-18, 10:07 AM   [Ignore Me] #49
Sgt Shultz
Corporal
 
Sgt Shultz's Avatar
 
Re: "Controlling" world populace


Originally Posted by Figment View Post
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.
I think there has been too many dark chapters written in human history with population control and eugenics as the theme. Best to leave any attempts alone and focus on perhaps space colonization or something of the like.
Sgt Shultz is offline  
Old 2012-07-18, 02:20 PM   [Ignore Me] #50
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: "Controlling" world populace


Originally Posted by Sgt Shultz View Post
I think there has been too many dark chapters written in human history with population control and eugenics as the theme. Best to leave any attempts alone and focus on perhaps space colonization or something of the like.
So you're saying till we find the political will (and before we run out of resources for it) let population run wild and into the inevitable wars that will follow?

You do realise just how many people you'd have to (forcibly) ship off the earth to reduce population growth to zero, right?



What's the greater evil, wait for a famine and resources being plundered and the earth stripmined, or encourage a sustainable population for the habitat we have and voluntarily limit our growth rate to stop us from becoming locust in a dry season?
Figment is offline  
Old 2012-07-18, 02:30 PM   [Ignore Me] #51
ItsTheSheppy
Second Lieutenant
 
ItsTheSheppy's Avatar
 
Re: "Controlling" world populace


Originally Posted by Figment View Post
So you're saying till we find the political will (and before we run out of resources for it) let population run wild and into the inevitable wars that will follow?

You do realise just how many people you'd have to (forcibly) ship off the earth to reduce population growth to zero, right?



What's the greater evil, wait for a famine and resources being plundered and the earth stripmined, or encourage a sustainable population for the habitat we have and voluntarily limit our growth rate to stop us from becoming locust in a dry season?
Come now, Figment. Clearly there are only three options here. Either wholesale massacres, carried out from time to time; Star Trek; or nothing. I fail to see how there are ANY other sensible options we could possibly explore.
ItsTheSheppy is offline  
Old 2012-07-18, 02:35 PM   [Ignore Me] #52
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: "Controlling" world populace


You're right, what was I thinking?
Figment is offline  
Old 2012-07-18, 03:00 PM   [Ignore Me] #53
Baneblade
Contributor
Lieutenant General
 
Baneblade's Avatar
 
Re: "Controlling" world populace


People will be more resistant to population controls than they are pollution controls.
__________________
Post at me bro.

Baneblade is offline  
Old 2012-07-18, 04:07 PM   [Ignore Me] #54
Sgt Shultz
Corporal
 
Sgt Shultz's Avatar
 
Re: "Controlling" world populace


Originally Posted by Figment View Post
So you're saying till we find the political will (and before we run out of resources for it) let population run wild and into the inevitable wars that will follow?

You do realise just how many people you'd have to (forcibly) ship off the earth to reduce population growth to zero, right?

What's the greater evil, wait for a famine and resources being plundered and the earth stripmined, or encourage a sustainable population for the habitat we have and voluntarily limit our growth rate to stop us from becoming locust in a dry season?
I wonder how many man made created horrors were done in the name of "something must be done". You even mention the issue with the Chinese and yet fail to comprehend the cost of getting it wrong. When I lived in Shenyang, my co-workers absolutely despised it, but I am sure you and your fellow travelers are far more knowledgeable in the subject.

So yes, I place far more confidence in technology offering up a better solution then people like you getting policy just right.

Last edited by Sgt Shultz; 2012-07-18 at 04:09 PM.
Sgt Shultz is offline  
Old 2012-07-18, 04:28 PM   [Ignore Me] #55
Sirisian
Colonel
 
Sirisian's Avatar
 
Re: "Controlling" world populace


Originally Posted by Sgt Shultz View Post
When I lived in Shenyang, my co-workers absolutely despised it, but I am sure you and your fellow travelers are far more knowledgeable in the subject.
You mean they wanted more children, but couldn't? Were they aware that they can adopt even with the one-child policy to have two or more children? (I believe it's with less benefits, though I've never read their official rules).

I've always been curious about the complications the policy has caused in people's lives. Most of my friends have siblings. I myself am a twin. (Though China has laws for handling duplicated children which are often abused).

Last edited by Sirisian; 2012-07-18 at 04:29 PM.
Sirisian is offline  
Old 2012-07-18, 04:41 PM   [Ignore Me] #56
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: "Controlling" world populace


Originally Posted by Sgt Shultz View Post
I wonder how many man made created horrors were done in the name of "something must be done". You even mention the issue with the Chinese and yet fail to comprehend the cost of getting it wrong. When I lived in Shenyang, my co-workers absolutely despised it, but I am sure you and your fellow travelers are far more knowledgeable in the subject.

So yes, I place far more confidence in technology offering up a better solution then people like you getting policy just right.
I never said they wouldn't despise it. Certainly not if they want to continue the family line (leading to your despising friends aborting any girls in favour of male descendants leading to a female shortage). And just have sex. And more sex. Which is notoriously harder and thus more frustrating in China due to the lack of womenses due to your despising friends who want a male lineage continuation.



But that's not the point. You want there to be 50 billion people on this world and tell them all it's okay to get 10 kids because that's their right and freedom?


Note, we're talking about awareness and voluntary constraints based on education, not state abortions.

Last edited by Figment; 2012-07-18 at 04:43 PM.
Figment is offline  
Old 2012-07-18, 05:29 PM   [Ignore Me] #57
Sgt Shultz
Corporal
 
Sgt Shultz's Avatar
 
Re: "Controlling" world populace


Originally Posted by Sirisian View Post
You mean they wanted more children, but couldn't? Were they aware that they can adopt even with the one-child policy to have two or more children? (I believe it's with less benefits, though I've never read their official rules).

I've always been curious about the complications the policy has caused in people's lives. Most of my friends have siblings. I myself am a twin. (Though China has laws for handling duplicated children which are often abused).
There was a couple of reasons they despised it. Some of them wanted more then one child. Some of them had a female and wanted a male to carry on the family name. Several of the men were actually having difficulties securing a bride as many of the women were looking for non-Chinese men (which is a whole discussion in itself). Additionally many of the Chinese women I ran into had an extremely narcissistic personality, which I am still trying to understand, which was also mentioned as an aspect of the once child policy.

Last edited by Sgt Shultz; 2012-07-18 at 05:30 PM.
Sgt Shultz is offline  
Old 2012-07-18, 05:56 PM   [Ignore Me] #58
Sirisian
Colonel
 
Sirisian's Avatar
 
Re: "Controlling" world populace


Originally Posted by Sgt Shultz View Post
Some of them had a female and wanted a male to carry on the family name.
The concept that it's important to create a lineage is something we need to get rid of, but from the perspective of China it seems almost silly. Pretty much no one in China has a unique surname, so unless you are meticulously keeping a family tree it's a pointless endeavor lost to time. When I asked a few people they couldn't go back more than 3 generations with names.

Was this older people or the younger generation about to create a family? It would be awesome to find out if the feeling of continuing a family name is still strong or more of a "my parents" believe it thing.
Sirisian is offline  
Old 2012-07-18, 06:26 PM   [Ignore Me] #59
Sgt Shultz
Corporal
 
Sgt Shultz's Avatar
 
Re: "Controlling" world populace


Originally Posted by Sirisian View Post
The concept that it's important to create a lineage is something we need to get rid of, but from the perspective of China it seems almost silly. Pretty much no one in China has a unique surname, so unless you are meticulously keeping a family tree it's a pointless endeavor lost to time. When I asked a few people they couldn't go back more than 3 generations with names.

Was this older people or the younger generation about to create a family? It would be awesome to find out if the feeling of continuing a family name is still strong or more of a "my parents" believe it thing.
It was definitely present in the younger generation, and largely (from what I observed) was being driven by the parents and grandparents. They gave parents and grandparents far more respect, and say-so in life decisions then we in the western world give to our elders.
Sgt Shultz is offline  
Old 2012-07-18, 06:47 PM   [Ignore Me] #60
Baneblade
Contributor
Lieutenant General
 
Baneblade's Avatar
 
Re: "Controlling" world populace


IPN Opinion article
Authors:
Indur M. Goklany
Media outlet:

The Monitor (Uganda)

World Population Day: The problem is not population, but poverty.

For many groups like the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) World Population Day on July 11 was another chance to bemoan 'the relentless growth in human population,' while the United Nations Population Fund says 'stabilising population would help sustain the planet.' The problem, however, is not population but poverty.

Over-population enthusiasts have always claimed there is not enough land or resources for everyone and, even as their predictions of apocalyptic famines, epidemics and shortages failed to come true, they gained support from many environmentalists.

Exponentially increasing wealth, population and technology, they allege, will cause pollution, climate change and irreversible losses of biodiversity, pushing the Earth to a tipping-point, threatening humans and the planet itself.

On the contrary, our lives are now longer, wealthier and healthier.

At early stages of development, societies give priority to acquiring wealth over environmental protection, to get basic needs and wants like food, shelter, health, education and material goods. But, once these are met, societies soon have the desire and, importantly, the wealth and technology to solve environmental problems.

What is more, evidence indicates that as countries grow richer, their population growth slows. The global population growth rate, far from rising exponentially, has tumbled since the 1960s.

Recent projections expect population to peak this century, around nine billion.

Initially, growth and technology do increase population as better health care, sanitation and nutrition cut deaths.

But, in the long run, births fall, for example through better education and work opportunities for women.

Although the world population has quadrupled since 1900, food, energy and raw materials are cheaper today than for much of history. Agricultural technology and trade have made food more affordable and available around the world.

In the early 1970s, 37 per cent of the developing world's people suffered from chronic hunger but it is now down to 17 per cent, despite ill-advised biofuel subsidies which divert food to fuel.

The combination of increased prosperity, trade and technology has lowered the lower real prices of food and many raw materials, effectively making them less scarce. Food and metals are now eight times cheaper in India than in 1900, and thirteen times cheaper in the USA.

Basic hygiene, cleaner water, sanitation, more food and developments in medicine such as vaccinations and antibiotics have reduced mortality for infants, children, mothers and everyone else. Consequently, global average life expectancy, perhaps the single most important measure of human well-being, increased from 31 years in 1900 to 47 years in the early 1950s to 67 years today.

Hybrid seeds and other advances in agricultural technology (like fertilisers, irrigation and pesticides) have saved vast acres of forests and wildlands from conversion to farmland. In the USA, for example, despite the population tripling and consumption increasing 19-fold, cropland has remained steady at 330 million acres since 1910: technology actually saved about 1,300 million hectares. Though air quality in newly industrialising countries is much worse than in rich countries, they are making quicker improvements than developed countries did in the latter half of the 20th century.

China, India and South Africa, like Although carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions have not peaked, the quantity of emissions per dollar of Gross Domestic Product (literally, the carbon intensity of wealth) has peaked and is falling rapidly in many places.

But many environmentalists and population enthusiasts want to restrict economic growth, technology and human freedoms, damaging both humans and the environment.

Billions in developing countries still suffer from poverty and its consequences such as hunger and malaria. They must be allowed to improve their lives.

Indur Goklany is author of The Improving State of the World (Cato, 2007) and co-editor of the peer-reviewed Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development (EJSD).
http://www.policynetwork.net/environ...fecting-us-now
__________________
Post at me bro.

Baneblade is offline  
 
  PlanetSide Universe > General Forums > Political Debate Forum

Bookmarks

Discord


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:05 AM.

Content © 2002-2013, PlanetSide-Universe.com, All rights reserved.
PlanetSide and the SOE logo are registered trademarks of Sony Online Entertainment Inc. © 2004 Sony Online Entertainment Inc. All rights reserved.
All other trademarks or tradenames are properties of their respective owners.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.