Register
Events
Popular
More
Post #1
Earth is overpopulated, yet in most countries today there seems to be no plans on introducing population control.
I think that we in the future will have to introduce population control anyway, so why not start now before the problem has gotten out of hand? What I'm concerned about is nature and other species around us, they need space too.
With population control you can still at the least, have 2 children per lifetime so it shouldn't really be a big difference. And if you still exceed the decided limit (I reckon the limit will differ a bit) you will be required to pay a fine.
What are your thoughts about this?
-
-
Either take a major freedom away from the people or watch as we slowly devour ourselves and the earth.
-
I feel that it is ethical so long as we don't end up killing anyone in the end.
-
-snip-
-
Gee, that's a pretty clean-cut choice, isn't it?
Personally, I don't think that the ability to have children is a right at this point, nor do I think it sociably responsible. There are thousands of children out there that need loving parents, and yet religious individuals insist on pumping out good little church-goers.
Christian families are some of the biggest offenders, at least here in the United States. You have Mormon, Catholic and Baptist families with at least three children, with an upwards of six to eight. It's insanity, and all in the name of creating more followers. Disgusting.
-
It sounds like it will become a necessary evil in the future. It will be met with objections, protests, and probably riots.
But I think that it should be an eventual requirement, and not only because of the environment- there simply won't be enough food or living space if people keep reproducing at the current rate, without intruding upon protected habitats.
Then again, I detest the idea of these kind of scenes being commonplace.
-
Global financial crisis will fix it
-
I'm all for birth limits or even birth licencing. However, I probably wouldn't tolerate killings to keep the population down. That seems a bit fucked.
-
Overpopulation is a myth
-
Overpopulation is way more complicated than just "we are too many". You can't say "Earth is overpopulated" - it makes no sense. It assumes that everybody on Earth share its resources evenly - and that there's a lack of it to support the population. Of course, that's a very very simplified picture that isn't accurate at all. Overpopulation in developed countries is not a problem - nor would any population control in these countries help with poorer countries' problems.
If you are American, it doesn't matter how many kids you have. You gotta understand the problems of over population and the solutions! It's all about economy. If the industries can't keep up with the population rise, the unemployment rate will increase. If it does, the economy will sink and the poverty will increase. As it happens, the population increase will accelerate (poor people have lots of children, wealthy have fewer). This in turn leads to increased child mortality and a collapsed economy. This is the essence of overpopulation.
Solution? Fix the economy. And that's not exactly something we here on FP is gonna do magic with. :P
-
That'd be lovely, wouldn't it?
A birthing license, consisting of an IQ test, the sequencing of both parent's DNA, and a general test on common sense. They would also have to have a combined income high enough to be able to raise the child in a safe and comfortable environment.
-
The main problem with overpopulation we have is these sort of "2nd World Countries" in which they have "First World" lifestyle and healthcare, but "Third World" ideals. In turn, couples will on average spawn 4-8 babies, and in the "Third World" only one or two would survive, but now with their superior society, almost all will live out their whole life. Specific examples of this are India, Sri Lanka and Mongolia.
-
You PROBABLY wouldn't tolerate it? Do you know what the result of overpopulation is - what we are trying to prevent? Deaths.
There is nothing more contra productive than trying to "fix" overpopulation by killing people.
-
No, it isn't.
We have plenty of room, food, and resources to support a massively huge number of people than we have currently.
The real problem lies not within 'overpopulation', but rather monopolized economics and a primitive sense of nationalism and food hoarding. Not to discredit Western charity organizations (which also have their flaws, btw) but we are not doing the least bit we can to actually help those who are in need, stuck in 3rd world countries and starving. For example, did you know that to solve world hunger - we would require around 30 billion dollars a year- according to the UN. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/ne....13446176.html
Compare that number with how much the world is spending on its military, and you should get a good sense of how much we aren't in fact doing to help the developing world.
It's really not about people getting too numerous, but rather a very skewed resource management system and misguided priorities of world leaders.
-
Nobody knows about overpopulation since we didn't experimented it yet.
-
If the Earth Is overpopulated, bring 'em the World War III holocaust.
-
I make sexist and racist jokes all the time yet,i still support the feminist movement and the rights of blacks.
July 2010
5,537 Posts
I think that strongly encouraging the usage of contraceptives,legalizing abortion,limiting the amount of children you can have and possibly introducing parenting licenses would be the best way to go.
-
AUTISMAL FEDORA WEARING MASSIVE RUNNING JOKE - PRAY CROHN'S DISEASE KILLS ME
July 2010
17,345 Posts
Overpopulation is a myth.
Birth rates are declining. Some countries even have a negative population growth. (Such as Japan)
-
I mostly agree with Marbalo, though I don't think that nationalism has anything to do with it. Rather, the lack of motivation to use resources and technologies efficiently and, of course, misguided charity organizations (although saying that "Western" charities are the only culprits of this is unnecessary and untrue).
Edited:
Also, OP, if you believe the world is overpopulated, the please provide evidence and sources rather than just making a claim and treating it as fact.
-
Sure, I know there's more space, but do we really need to use it? Do we really need to increase in numbers to evolve? I think that because humans are dominating the planet with superior intelligence, it is our responsibility to make sure that we don't encroach other species.
I was actually just looking at the population itself and not the economical issue.
Yep I know, it's a crazy thought.
It's the same thing with immigration really. They say immigration is to help people, when in reality only a lucky few gets picked to live a new life while the rest is left in misery and despair. And the resources spent on immigration could be used to help a much larger number of people if we just trashed the immigration idea and focused on localized help organizations.
Well it depends on how you define overpopulation. If you define it by as, overpopulation is when there's no more room or resources for humans then yes you are right, we are not overpopulating this planet.
However, I look at it this way, we are growing even though we don't have too, and I think that is a waste. It's a waste to destroy nature to build structures and roads when we don't have to. It is a waste of natural resources.
-
This is actually a very real thing in our future. You know, if Teddy Roosevelt doesn't come back by then ticked off at what has happened to the world, but anyways, if that ever happens I'd suggest making it illegal to have more than 1 child, whether the child is successfully born ( Say if you have an abortion, or the child acquires a heart defect and turns out to be a stillborn ) or not, so over time the population would go down slowly. Very slowly. Or we could attempt to colonize Mars before that happens, but if we don't and the 1 child plan fails it's time to castrate some guys. Oh man, our future is going to be so messed up.
-
AUTISMAL FEDORA WEARING MASSIVE RUNNING JOKE - PRAY CROHN'S DISEASE KILLS ME
July 2010
17,345 Posts
Wrong, immigration is actually beneficial in the country in many, many cases. Nations that support immigration have historically had strong and diverse economies.
Nations that had a multicultural/dense population/high immigration have included the USA, Britain and the Netherlands. The latter two are more significant in that despite having a poor amount of land with which to farm and a lack of natural resources, they still became global powers at some stages in time.
Edited:
No no no. Not only is that infringing on multiple human rights, but:
The birth rate is declining. Some nations EVEN have a negative population growth.
-
I don't think overpopulation is our problem, I think it's how we are distributing our limited resources.
-
No it's not.
-
Totally is, I can't drive five feet without a traffic jam
Edited:
That's a completely flawless way of measuring population and in no way reflects the American transportation system in all it's glorious inadequacy.
-
Human rights = Invalid when it will kill our species.
And even with current birth rates declining, this is if over population becomes more of a pressing matter =P
-
wow no
-
Human Rights are not revocable.
-
When human rights become the cause of extinction they are revocable until we get back on track.
-
I don't think restricting birth rates is a severe violation of human rights, if at all. And it could be justifiable.
-
beep boop what's bodily autonomy
also it isn't even necessary does this need to be explained in every "population control" thread
-
I'm not supporting it, and I said nothing about abortions.
-
The UN has a different viewpoint
What's the only way you're going to properly enforce a One Child Policy? Forced abortions, mandatory sterilization, and severe monetary penalties for a basic function of living things. Do you seriously think it's ok to give the Government that much power over basic functions of the Human body?UN Declaration of Human Rights posted:
-
bodily autonomy isn't all about abortions you know
-
I'm not fucking supporting population control. If you aren't going to understand this then I have nothing else to say.
-
You said restricting birth rates (which is a form of population control) wouldn't be a severe violation of human rights, and I'm trying to point out that it is.
-
Ofcourse. We are the dominating and most intelligent species on this planet. That comes with a responsibility. We can't just overpopulate the planet and give fuck about nature and other species just because it is "against human rights". It's simply too much at stake to stick to an ignorant rule like that.
However. I don't think abortions and sterilizations will be necessary. If you exceed the allowed child limit you should get a penalty instead.
Abortions and sterilizations is a desperate solution and will only be needed if we wait with this population issue until we hit the wall. So it's a matter of long-term planning, which sadly our politicians today aren't so good at.
Edited:
Well, Sweden's current immigration politics is not beneficial.
But that's not relevant and I think you misread my post. I wasn't talking about whether immigration is good for a country or not. I was saying that spending so much money on immigration (That for example Sweden does) is a waste when you can use that money to help possibly twice the amount of people only if you do it through localized help organizations.
-
AUTISMAL FEDORA WEARING MASSIVE RUNNING JOKE - PRAY CROHN'S DISEASE KILLS ME
July 2010
17,345 Posts
And you do know that as a society modernises, industrialises and advances, the birth rate naturally decreases by itself?
It's already happening in many first world countries now.
-
No. People should be able to have as many kids as they are able to support. Besides, birth rates are dropping in pretty key countries, it's not going t obe a problem.
-
I don't even know why people are concerned about this. By UN estimates the population is set to plateau at 9 billion: http://www.un.org/esa/population/pub...lights_rev.pdf
