1. Post #1
    Gold Member
    Ragy's Avatar
    April 2009
    2,463 Posts
    We as a species have grown enormously, both in population and want for resources, but there is limited space in which humans can thrive and limited resources of which we can use. We have almost reached 7 billion in population, an extraordinary large size for a species which requires so much resources. We are exploiting the environment to the point that we are hurting ourselves and other species, an irreversible consequence. Should human population control be enforced to ensure adequate living and safe use of limited resources, not just for ourselves, but for all other species?

    I personally believe in controlling the human population, as I would rather want our future generation to see the beauty of the world untouched and not starve for food or fight for resources. We as a species need to realize we are limited in what we can do and there are consequences for passing those lines. Every other living species on this planet is equal to us, we are too self-centered caring only about ourselves and what we wan't, regardless of the damage it will cause.

    I do not support brutal or inhumane ways of controlling human population and am not claiming at our current point of almost 7 billion that human population control should be enforced, I am simply arguing the morality.

  2. Post #2
    Gold Member
    carcarcargo's Avatar
    October 2007
    15,286 Posts
    It's virtually impossible to do without breaching human rights so sadly no.

  3. Post #3
    thispieiscold's Avatar
    November 2010
    1,263 Posts
    you say that we're running out of resources, but can i see some evidence of that? there are plenty of resources for the foreseeable future, to my knowledge
    of course, i could be uninformed and we're about to nose dive into a wheat shortage or something, but i haven't yet heard of such a thing

    Edited:

    oh and just to add, we passed 7 billion people quite a while ago

  4. Post #4
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    April 2007
    4,307 Posts
    you say that we're running out of resources, but can i see some evidence of that? there are plenty of resources for the foreseeable future, to my knowledge
    of course, i could be uninformed and we're about to nose dive into a wheat shortage or something, but i haven't yet heard of such a thing

    Edited:

    oh and just to add, we passed 7 billion people quite a while ago
    food shortages and oil shortages mostly

  5. Post #5
    Ogopogo's Avatar
    March 2011
    5,043 Posts
    Well interestingly enough, Canada's population is only increasing due to immigrants. The average rate of birth is something like 1.7 per woman.

  6. Post #6
    Str4fe's Avatar
    December 2009
    5,102 Posts
    Sadly, i think human population should be controlled. Mass murder wouldnt really be nice, but make it so that a couple can only have one child. I know this is not working very well in china, but it might work elsewhere, or atleast slow population growth a LOT.

  7. Post #7
    Gold Member
    Ragy's Avatar
    April 2009
    2,463 Posts
    you say that we're running out of resources, but can i see some evidence of that? there are plenty of resources for the foreseeable future, to my knowledge
    of course, i could be uninformed and we're about to nose dive into a wheat shortage or something, but i haven't yet heard of such a thing

    Edited:

    oh and just to add, we passed 7 billion people quite a while ago
    Limited resources are, hence, limited. There is no unlimited supply of which we can feed off of forever. As population increases and time goes on, those resources will become more strained and rare. I never really stated we were running out of a particular resource, I mean in reality we obviously are, but not in the sense that we are doomed in only a few years. The only resource I'm sure that is rare at this time period which is vital to human survival is fresh water.

  8. Post #8
    Hi
    Chekko's Avatar
    February 2010
    12,241 Posts
    Well interestingly enough, Canada's population is only increasing due to immigrants. The average rate of birth is something like 1.7 per woman.
    Then lower the immigrati- That's racist.

  9. Post #9
    Str4fe's Avatar
    December 2009
    5,102 Posts
    Its not racist to be against immigration.

  10. Post #10
    Gold Member
    Un.Hxx.Aé's Avatar
    July 2005
    1,413 Posts
    Its not racist to be against immigration.
    As with everything, it depends on why you are against it.

  11. Post #11
    Satansick's Avatar
    September 2009
    2,321 Posts
    Yeah right and watch the rats outdo us in quantity and gain intelligence and kill us all

  12. Post #12
    Kljunas's Avatar
    August 2011
    2,907 Posts
    Sadly, i think human population should be controlled. Mass murder wouldnt really be nice, but make it so that a couple can only have one child. I know this is not working very well in china, but it might work elsewhere, or atleast slow population growth a LOT.
    And you end up with a major population aging problem.

  13. Post #13
    Gold Member
    Venezuelan's Avatar
    September 2011
    12,357 Posts
    Only 3rd world countries continue to grow at unsustainable rates. Most estimates say the population will level out well below the Earth's carrying capacity. The issue is largely sensationalist.

  14. Post #14
    RAPISTS ARE OPPRESSED
    mobrockers2's Avatar
    April 2011
    12,403 Posts
    The growth of our population only encourages us to do/try new things. The more of us there are, the sooner we'll be colonizing other planets.

  15. Post #15
    Gold Member
    SamPerson123's Avatar
    September 2007
    3,558 Posts
    As far as basic necessities go, food production is likely to continue to improve, and overcrowding shouldn't be too much of a problem, at least not for a long while. I heard somewhere that the entire population of the world could easily fit in an area the size of Texas.

  16. Post #16
    RAPISTS ARE OPPRESSED
    mobrockers2's Avatar
    April 2011
    12,403 Posts
    As far as basic necessities go, food production is likely to continue to improve, and overcrowding shouldn't be too much of a problem, at least not for a long while. I heard somewhere that the entire population of the world could easily fit in an area the size of Texas.
    We need houses, you know

  17. Post #17
    Str4fe's Avatar
    December 2009
    5,102 Posts
    As with everything, it depends on why you are against it.
    Is it racist if i am against immigration because the crime-rates are higher in the countries where we get the immigrants from?

    It is quite common sense, that when you have a half-full glass of beer, with 5% alcohol, and another half full glass with 10% alcohol, and if you pour that 10% one to the 5% one, you get one full glass with 7.5% alcohol.

    Its same with immigration and crime rates.


    But i am derailing the thread here.

  18. Post #18
    SpartanApples's Avatar
    December 2009
    8,487 Posts
    All that needs to be done is increase the standard of education. Studies have shown that if a woman is better educated she is more likely to have children later in life and therefore have less children. That's why immigrant families have more children, they come from poorer countries so they haven't had as good an education.

  19. Post #19
    Gold Member
    SamPerson123's Avatar
    September 2007
    3,558 Posts
    We need houses, you know
    I just looked it up, it would be over 1000 square feet per person. If you have apartment buildings there would probably be plenty left over.

  20. Post #20
    Gold Member
    Venezuelan's Avatar
    September 2011
    12,357 Posts
    Its same with immigration and crime rates.
    nope not really, plus by your analogy it's like dumping a shot in a keg anyway, unless you think half of the population is immigrants.

  21. Post #21
    Str4fe's Avatar
    December 2009
    5,102 Posts
    I dont mean the same rates.

    Edited:

    Why would it not be like that?
    Sure, the better security compensates it, but people from other countries behave differently. Some of them do bring that behavior with them.

  22. Post #22
    Rad McCool's Avatar
    August 2009
    3,883 Posts
    Us western countries already have very solid birth rates. '
    The problem lies within the poor countries, especially Africa, where they breed like there's no tomorrow.


  23. Post #23
    Gold Member
    Venezuelan's Avatar
    September 2011
    12,357 Posts
    I dont mean the same rates.

    Edited:

    Why would it not be like that?
    Because crime is usually a result of the environment, not the people.

    Edited:

    On topic, here's a fun chart.


  24. Post #24
    AnEvilGuy's Avatar
    October 2009
    1,399 Posts
    Us western countries already have very solid birth rates. '
    The problem lies within the poor countries, especially Africa, where they breed like there's no tomorrow.

    And due to shit infrastructure and unstable governments, getting food is quite hard.

  25. Post #25
    Gold Member
    Un.Hxx.Aé's Avatar
    July 2005
    1,413 Posts
    Is it racist if i am against immigration because the crime-rates are higher in the countries where we get the immigrants from?

    It is quite common sense, that when you have a half-full glass of beer, with 5% alcohol, and another half full glass with 10% alcohol, and if you pour that 10% one to the 5% one, you get one full glass with 7.5% alcohol.

    Its same with immigration and crime rates.


    But i am derailing the thread here.
    It's funny you use an alcohol analogy cause I was thinking about finnish immigrants and their overconsumption of alcohol. End of derail.

    No, I wouldn't say your reason is racist, but there are other reasons for being against immigration.

    Also your analogy. what

  26. Post #26
    I am a moderator.
    Swebonny's Avatar
    August 2006
    13,242 Posts
    Sadly, i think human population should be controlled. Mass murder wouldnt really be nice, but make it so that a couple can only have one child. I know this is not working very well in china, but it might work elsewhere, or atleast slow population growth a LOT.
    How do you mean "not working very well"? Their fertility rate is actually below their total fertility rate. And if you look at this graph you'll see that their population is growing slower and slower:
    http://www.google.com/publicdata/exp...ulation+growth

  27. Post #27
    Str4fe's Avatar
    December 2009
    5,102 Posts
    It's funny you use an alcohol analogy cause I was thinking about finnish immigrants and their overconsumption of alcohol. End of derail.

    No, I wouldn't say your reason is racist, but there are other reasons for being against immigration.

    Also your analogy. what
    Im just not that good in english to not use a shitty analogy. But you get what i mean, right?
    End of derail.

    Edited:

    How do you mean "not working very well"? Their fertility rate is actually below their total fertility rate. And if you look at this graph you'll see that their population is growing slower and slower:
    http://www.google.com/publicdata/exp...ulation+growth
    I just meant that its not stopping the population growth, or something. I dont know that much about these things.

  28. Post #28

    August 2011
    772 Posts
    food shortages and oil shortages mostly
    There is no oil shortage, you're an idiot.
    There is also no food shortage, there is a shortage of effective ways to transport said food to those whom need it most, aka third world countries, this could be due to the terrain, government bodies of said country or sheer cost of doing so, etc...
    Oil, like discussed in the oil thread, is simply just kept bottle necked at high prices by those who have it all.

  29. Post #29
    SK17a
    garychencool's Avatar
    October 2010
    13,915 Posts
    At 7 Billion people, it's a lot of people, most of which are in poverty to under the poverty line areas, countries, etc.

  30. Post #30
    Pie108's Avatar
    January 2010
    2,725 Posts
    Population is actually leveling off, just you wait for the baby boom era to die out and it should stay fairly constant. The idea is that with 1 or 2 children, you're replacing the mother and father. But until the parents die off, they'll count as 4 people instead of 2; there's a few decades of overlap between the two.

  31. Post #31
    Holy-Smokes's Avatar
    October 2011
    513 Posts
    I agree, we run around calling rats pests in our houses when its actually us being pests in their nature.
    We are a disease to the earth, and we must bring our sentience to use and restore that harmony we destroyed.

  32. Post #32
    Gold Member
    Raptortheawesome's Avatar
    May 2009
    5,111 Posts
    We aren't going to be overpopulated any time soon, hundreds die every day, and people starving in some countries isn't a matter of the world not having enough food, it's more of them not having access to food, and people not helping them out by sending them food or money. Killing our own kind because we're worried about something we have no proper evidence of is just stupid.

  33. Post #33
    Gold Member
    Raygen's Avatar
    March 2008
    1,104 Posts
    You could limit parents to having 2 children as a less extreme method of population control. The population would no longer grow, but slowly shrink as we lose people to accidents / incidents / etc.

    But there will always be a fuckload of strings attached to any type of "population control".

  34. Post #34
    If I want a lot of kids, I can keep having them. The government has no say in how many kids I want to have.

  35. Post #35
    Gold Member
    Electroholic's Avatar
    June 2011
    2,339 Posts
    There is no way to limit birthrates without using abortion. People will always accidentally get pregnant, and some people will always want more kids.

    And since society only bitches about how bad abortion is, we're fucked. And besides, nobody could force a woman to get an abortion.

    Population is actually leveling off, just you wait for the baby boom era to die out and it should stay fairly constant. The idea is that with 1 or 2 children, you're replacing the mother and father. But until the parents die off, they'll count as 4 people instead of 2; there's a few decades of overlap between the two.
    Yeah I don't usually see people with shitloads of kids now days, compared to my parents and grandparents who grew up with like 6 other siblings.

  36. Post #36
    Gold Member
    Ragy's Avatar
    April 2009
    2,463 Posts
    People are only taking in the population amount and food requirements. In the next few decades, the requirements will be extraordinary. More and more third world countries are becoming first world countries causing living standards to rapidly raise. First world countries require much more resources because of higher living standards, such as technology, cars, food, fresh water, and the largest one, energy. The projected energy requirements 50 years from now is insane and unless we tap some new significant energy source, we are doomed. 16% of the worlds population consumes 80% of the worlds raw resources. 5% of the world population consumes 26% of the worlds energy. The fact is we can not provide first world standards 50 years from now at the rate first world living is rising. We can not continue living as we do, it just isn't possible.

    I'm not saying human population control is the answer, but the size of our species is at the roots of the problem. That can not be denied.

  37. Post #37
    RAPISTS ARE OPPRESSED
    mobrockers2's Avatar
    April 2011
    12,403 Posts
    People are only taking in the population amount and food requirements. In the next few decades, the requirements will be extraordinary. More and more third world countries are becoming first world countries causing living standards to rapidly raise. First world countries require much more resources because of higher living standards, such as technology, cars, food, fresh water, and the largest one, energy. The projected energy requirements 50 years from now is insane and unless we tap some new significant energy source, we are doomed. 16% of the worlds population consumes 80% of the worlds raw resources. 5% of the world population consumes 26% of the worlds energy. The fact is we can not provide first world standards 50 years from now at the rate first world living is rising. We can not continue living as we do, it just isn't possible.

    I'm not saying human population control is the answer, but the size of our species is at the roots of the problem. That can not be denied.
    Might want to check your math there mate

  38. Post #38
    Bawbag's Avatar
    December 2011
    530 Posts
    Simple. Remove all state funding from people who have more than 3 kids. Encourage contraception.

  39. Post #39
    Gold Member
    Ragy's Avatar
    April 2009
    2,463 Posts
    Might want to check your math there mate
    There wasn't any math in my post, only statistics. What are you referring to?

  40. Post #40
    Gold Member
    Lazor's Avatar
    July 2007
    9,253 Posts
    lmao yes let's have population control even though population growth naturally declines in pretty much every developed country