|
Forum: Rants Topic: Overpopulation started by: Client Posted by Client on Jun. 21 2000,07:58
A maximum of two (2) blood children? I was thinking about government programs to reduce population (considering it is the root of every major economical (billions of needy, dying children/mothers/men/women), social (billions of needy dying children/mothers/men/women), and ecological (billions of dying [everyone] from the multitudes' increasing needs for transportation/energy/food) problem man faces.). What would you say to a program that offers health benefits to families who adopt/don't have children? Or an actual two-child limitation law (of course Americans would freak; IDIOTS---It is important to realize that through limiting birth and taking away certain MINOR rights we preserve the right to live of EVERY human being to come)? I have thought of a "sterilization at birth" plan as well...after turning...lets say...21, providing your Child Care License (which can be obtained through rigorous several month training sessions), as well as proof of financial stability for yourself and the child for a period of at least two years, you would be granted your Birthing License and have your reproductive (male and female) organs untied or whatnot to enable pregnancy. I do not know...I would love feedback…I am a just a young man of 17, lonely and wondering, surrounded by a generation of spoiled ignorance, looking for some intellectual stimulation. Anyone out there? ------------------ This means that the day before this occurs, the masses will eat last grain of rice and burn the last block of wood. Posted by Sithiee on Jun. 21 2000,08:24
thats dumb, granted there are far too many people in this world, but thats one of the stupidest solutions ive ever heard. how about instead of taking all this money and cutting down the human race, we find a way to make the moon habitable, and then we start sending people there, and then like mars and such. when england became over populated, it created colonies and started sending people there, why doesnt the earth as a whole do the same? Posted by Client on Jun. 21 2000,08:31
Are you fucking kidding me? Do the homework kid. At the rate we are going the moon will not handle a tenth of us at that crucial point--it wouldn’t now--and where are the resources that will keep those people alive? Solar power is great, but it does not provide soil or organic life (and there is no “soil” the moon--which humans are destroying species of left and right. England had land to expand to--we do not. In addition, we have already killed 10,000 species of life. Granted, there are a lot left, but we killed the last 9,000 in the last fifty years. The moon is not a solution, and even if it was, how much money do YOU think it would cost to set it up a habitat? I think you need to re-evaluate the actual problem, as well as step out of that fantasy world that has somehow deceived you into believing that science fiction solution.------------------ Ever see a cage of rats starve to death?
[This message has been edited by Client (edited June 21, 2000).] Posted by Client on Jun. 21 2000,08:38
And my god, (i apologize for my obsession...see the breasts rant) Do you understand that it is the RATE that is the problem? Expanding the area of the human race’s "empire" is not going to decrease the birth RATE! This rate makes that expansion less and less effective---it even increases the rate. The world's population is increasing EXPONENTIALLY; thusly that little bit of space will fill in like the bus seat next to a porn star. Moreover, the new space will lead to a greater rate until even the Universe cannot support humanity.And, we have to work together as a race to prevent that from happening. Posted by DuSTman on Jun. 21 2000,09:06
Have you read the governments thread client?I proposed the killing of approximately 2/3 of the worlds population, while attempting to maintain demographics near current levels, no one thought the idea was really practical although a few people agreed in principle that it needed to be done.. Personally i don't thing there will be any saving of us because of the concept of right and wrong - most solutions to the problem would invite moral outcry. It's unfortunate. Truly, it's unfortunate. Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 21 2000,09:45
Proclaim me ruler of the earth and ill take care of the problem.(i would have no problem with zapping 2/3 of the population, i see the reason for it) Then the rest of you can over-throw me and be heros.the best answer is the simple one. ------------------ Posted by Istari on Jun. 21 2000,12:50
Instituting a maximum of two children per adult with a "Child Care License" would be a good idea, but only if such a license was available based upon very strict requirements. Physical prowess, health, mental ability, and lack of disease should all be factors in deciding those able to bear and raise children. This is an extreme measure and most people probably do not consider this necessary...yet, so how about another suggestion?Education is a possible solution. Educate women (and men) from elementary school that having children is not a necessity in life! It seems everyone simply expects to have children, for no other reason than they “want to.” It's no longer simply about propagating the race (that seems more than assured to me), but it's about having children for the sake of having children. We should vehemently educate our youth to realize the benefits and detriments to having children and let them make the decision for themselves. That's the least we could do right now...and with only some controversy I would hope. Anyone have feedback on what kind of educating measures we should take or even if that's a feasible idea? ------ Posted by The_Hiro on Jun. 21 2000,13:22
The Ethical SolutionThe population growth rate in first world nations isn't the main problem (We've got a greying population...). The growth rate is much worse in the Third World. And until these countries make a transition from their resource-based economies to post-industrial economies, their population growth will continue to be explosive (regardless of education). That's because survival in the third world is hugely aided by a having large family (i.e. it's much easier to run a farm with 12 people vs. 4; it's easier to survive on pitiful wages when you've got a large family pooling its efforts). The solution to the population problem is to bring the third world countries up to speed - move them out of functioning on a resource-based level. Once that's done, much of the incentive for starting up a large family is eliminated and the growth rate will be diminished. Not so easy to accomplish, though (of course there are no easy answers to this problem), because it'll take financial aid from first world countries to get things going. Last time I checked there weren't any willing volunteers. It seems to me that we're doomed. Cage of rats indeed. The Unethical Solution(s) a) Some kind of sterilization program. Put something into the water supply of Third World countries.
[This message has been edited by The_Hiro (edited June 21, 2000).] Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 21 2000,15:16
First off let me say genocide sucks. If you kill 2/3 of the population, it will just grow again. Of course, natural processes are a limiting factor to growth, but relying on these will cause innocent people to starve or die from disease, and that is not cool. We need to build up 3rd world countries, because grinding poverty is where most of this excess population is created. (see one of Carl Sagan's many books for solutions to this problem) Also, we need more room. China and India are extremely densely populated. Perhaps we could terraform Mars ala Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy. Of course this is about a hundred years away, but it's an idea, and we need more ideas now. Jello in 2000, join the green wedge! Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 21 2000,16:25
i dont think we have a hundred years. Yes if you take out 2/3 of the pop it will grow again. Point is you have 2,000,000,000 less people to feed and use resources.check this out... Now tell me that drastic measures are out of the question. We need time and ill gladly buy this time with the lives of others. ------------------ Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 21 2000,16:26
and, yes, i did copy that from another site.------------------ Posted by Kolben on Jun. 21 2000,16:48
I was was just at some lecture about the overpopulation problem last year. I was actually suprised to see the conclusion. That was, that even thoough the world contains lots of people it can contain a lot more. And you are talking about how we are reducing the number of species on the earth. Well...yes we are, but we have to have in mind that lots of new species is created each day. And lots of species would die out by "natural courses". But about the rate of birth. Do you guys really think that man will continue reproducing with the same rate. At the lecture the smart men concluded that it'll slow down once we reach 8 bill. (approx. half the earths capacity). And even if it was a problem, you should go to the countries WITH the problems, and pull your stupid birth-rules over their heads. Not over the whole world. The fact is, that it's wrong to do stuff like that. I believe in the freedom of the individual person, and by saying that they can't have kids is breaking that rule. You people are just too god damn nerveous. Let's deal with the problem when/if it comes. The earth is not in danger...we've even found out, that the global heating isn't our fault. It'd have heated up anyway...
Posted by Sithiee on Jun. 21 2000,19:05
first off, client, dont call me kid, im at most like a year younger than you. second, what i proposed would nto cut down on the rate, true, however, the moon can support quite a few people, at least like a billion id guess, considering the lack of water bodies. Also, if you send lots of people to the moon or whatnot, chances are theyre less likely to have children there, considering the limited supply of resources. And as for the rate, its not an exponential rate, there are so many factors involved that it cant be. its like shooting off a model rocket, first the lightest feul section fires, and it goes into the air, then a heavier section fires, making it go faster, and you have 4 sections, so it seems to be speeding up at an exponential rate, but eventually your fuel is gone. gravity takes effect, and it comes back down. people are the same way, when we get to our maximum capacity, not everyone can survive, and so theyll start dying....theres an algorithm for this called the game of life.about your mass genocide...you cant do that, what gives you the right to decide who can have kids and who cant? what gives you the right to decide who lives and who dies?...your like a few steps away from being hitler. "oh, they are not of arian descent! you cant reproduce." "oh, your not strong enough or smart enough! you cant reproduce."...similar? yes. NAZI BITCH! Posted by j0eSmith on Jun. 21 2000,19:15
Are you guys fucking nuts?Sterilization? Birth Limitations? wtf is your problem.. if we would just quit sending our money and resources to help poor countries with nothing but more people to feed in return we wouldn't have to worry. We still have lots of space left to inhabit, yes some of it might not be ideal, but so what? Let third world countries start to fend for themselves, they might finally get out of thier depression then, keep our foodstuffs on our own damned continent and TRADE with other countries, don't GIVE or SEND away food and other essentials to help support human life on other continets with no possible benifical reprocusions here execpt for more poor welfare-class immigrants comming over.. You guys are the people who I'm scared of getting into power.. we'll only take away a few MINOR rights of yours... just shred a tiny bit of the constitution. After all it would be for the good of the human race... who the fuck said YOU know whats best? We're due for a pandemic or two anyway, maybe nature will do this for you.. but what if we already recuded the population 10fold or so? Then what? maybe there wouldn't be enough of us left to carry on maybe you would have doomed us to destruction by trying to save us.. you see? We just don't know what IS better and what isn't in the long run.. Posted by Cyrino on Jun. 22 2000,00:46
Well, has anyone considered the fact that at the rate it's going, a great deal of the population in third world countries will be gone in a few years. People don't really realize that AIDS is such a problem over there. Also, they have nothing to stop it.I don't think that the birth lisence idea would work, it's good in theory, but people wouldn't let it happen. Look at communism, in theory, it would be great, but we all know what happens when someone attempts to enstate it. I really don't think that populating the moon is a feasable solution. There just aren't many resources on the moon to make it worth populating. I think that Kayy has the right idea, we should consider that a good possibility for the "room" problem that we will be faced with. Oh well, we'll see what happens... ------------------ [This message has been edited by Cyrino (edited June 21, 2000).] Posted by Client on Jun. 22 2000,01:58
I agree with Cyrino; I know that the idea could happen now, and wish that that kind of administration wasn’t ever an option. And for all of those who just don’t care about other countries and people: I’m concerned about the world as a whole, not just the US. Sending money helps people, even if they don’t help themselves. I choose not to ignore the rest of the world because it is "gang lifestyle", or the attitude that "i don’t give a damn about what happens to you and i wont think twice about killing your family (gang members), but don’t think for a second that you can touch anyone in my family". It is about the whole and always will be. We cannot concentrate on our community alone and let others rot because those others will affect ours in some way. And, as the world's largest waste producers, we also can’t ignore our negative affect on the entire human race through world ecology. Empathy man, think about how you would feel if the funds that were feeding you were cut off. It’s a simple mature way of thinking. Get out of your bubble.
Posted by Chrissy on Jun. 22 2000,04:32
First of all this thread is making me rethink my allegience to the human race in general. A bunch of you are elitest fucking jerks. Let me bring your attention to the united states pre industrialization. The idea of having children for the purposes of human LABOUR was the main stay of the american arigcultural society. It is only within the past 100 years that the US and north america in general has gone from increased birth rates to increased death rates....It has been shown that once a country reaches its agricultural threshold and moves from agrarian to industrial the birth rate levels off as does the death rate. Current population levels are of NO concern at this time.You want to stop funding third world countries...what the hell does that prove? You need more land and more places to build why because you are SOOO much better then they are? What happened to human decency? NORTH AMERICA IS NOT THE CENTER OF THE WORLD... you are not any better then an African man an Indian woman...who are you to say who gets to stay and who gets to go? Sithiee I think you might be the only person here who actually thinks! Stop getting all ethnocentric people and start using that thing you call a brain. And Cyrino- let me make a suggestion...before you start dumping on "communism" READ MARX and ENGLES Communist Manifesto. I hate hate hate hate hate when people say "Communism is good in theory but we all know how that worked out" actually we dont. Russia was NEVER FUCKING COMMUNIST...not the way marx saw communism. And before we have this debate I suggest you READ something. Everyone has this fucking debate about communism being the root of all evil...you know something CAPITALISM is...you are getting fucked every single day of your natural life and you DONT EVEN KNOW IT. The "communism" you speak of is Leninist communism which was a dictatorship which is what Marx was arguing against. Again it may be important to know what you are talking about before you start RANTING about it. And lets not really have this debate unless you REALLY WANT to have this debate..... Fucking A you just ruined my whole night
[This message has been edited by Chrissy (edited June 21, 2000).] Posted by DuSTman on Jun. 22 2000,05:12
Aye. Other problems that exist are such as : where the hell are we gonna get power from in a few years time? fossil fuels do *not* have long left. Yes, i know that having less people about doesn't increase the amount of fossil fuel (unless you somehow capture the methane coming off the rotting corpse). We have a good while left of coal, but who the hell wants coal.Lets all start a fusion power research charity. Posted by Client on Jun. 22 2000,05:49
The words of Wolfguard are strong and true...those of you who propose "killing" are simply posting for something other than real discussion considering they don't resemble humans in their cold hearted plan for sucsess. What they are saying is "kill my mother and my brother so i can live". This is not an approptiat solution, and as many have said, it would not solve the problem. The birth rate will slow, and it is the highest in third world countries, but the issue is that the resources will slim as a WORLD and not a nation-let us not go under that sickening time-lasting impression that America is apart from the rest of the world. As for the speceis-never in the history of the planet has this many species been ereadicated. The numbers show that it has risen from a natural hundred speces (per century) to the new 10,000. The odds are that another 10,000 will be gone in ten years. Education is great--where are the funds for it though? The (American) government denies over 20 third world countries access to birthcontrol; the buget as of now is 380 (nothing at all considering we are talking in terms of the WORLD). Do you think that a third world resident is going to find it easeir to find food if he knows he doesnt "have" to have children? It will still be better to have a large family. I think new energy forms such as fusion and the expansion of solar power could help; but food doenst grow without good soil water and sunlight--each of which the world is denying itslef access to as we destroy the environment with our increasing needs. Killing is what we are trying to avoid guys; i do not support the "kill them but keep me safe theory", and i dont think anyone wants to have their family and friends die or themselves to die. If this was our "ploicy" (see the Safe-Audit rant), the time would come when we were killing Americans-not that that would be different than killing other populations of other nations: We are all memebers of humanity and this is thew unifying factor. As for rights the previous overules: I would gladly give my right to have more than two children for my children's right to have more children. If the population peaks at 9 bill, or 1/2 the capascity-grEAT with a capital EAT; but nature has NEVER shown a population of any other animals to exibit this kind of behaivor when unchecked by predators and populaiton restriants--thusly we will, like rabbits, buffalo, ants, reproduce untill there is no place to migrate to untill there is no food left at all, not to mention no coal/fossile fuels/clean water/air etc. if we dont do something soon. The human race is a bad one...but i dont favor suffering or its survival through a few thousand eating the earth-covering flesh of the dead.
Posted by Client on Jun. 22 2000,05:52
I have enough faith in people to think that if a few "enforce" a survival technique, the rest will follow, but despite that following, they will be happy or have the chance to be happy.And maybe someday, well fed. Posted by Kayy on Jun. 22 2000,05:53
I'm going to look at this in such a way that nobody has even bothered to as yet on these forums. A lot of people have raised question of populating other planets and making them habitable.Nobody so far has looked at the masses and masses of sea that has room for over 4 times the current population of this planet as it stands now. Creating underwater habitats would be less expensive, and wouldnt need fossil fuels to power, as it would be surrounded by constantly moving currents - meaning hydroelectric power would never run out - thus making it near impossible to be without power. I see on the news every few months about plans to populate space-stations and other planets, and the terraforming of other planets, yet over 65\% of our planet lays underwater, and un-explored. I see nothing on the news about that. As for the birth control methods, that may work, but how do you expect to get every country in the world to instigate it into law so that everyones population count drops. Then take into account the 6.3 billion people that currently populate the world that could still reproduce without the need of the certificate or liscence. I suggest that rather than make absurd suggestions like that about the population, you look at the ways it would be counteracted and bypassed by the people before you suggest it. That's my ten pence worth put in the jar. ------------------ Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 22 2000,09:46
quote: Fusion/electric power was produced at PPL in princton. It was produced at a level of 0\% loss. this means that enough power was produced to power the reactor. something like 10KW per hour. Just after that breakthrough the goverment cut the funding. Can you say big oil does not want free power? Your goverment sits on a lot of things that would make the world a better place. Or they just let the company it would effect buy it and sit on it. ------------------ Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 22 2000,10:22
Okay, I, right now am going to state that genocide is wrong. But, suppose it actually came to that. There would be no way to carry it out besides some sort of Nazi death camp program, or a global nuclear war. (I love the smell of radioisotopes in the morning...) It may sound cruel, but at least if they die of starvation, no one has the burden of killing these innocents. A new study on intelligence shows approximately the same ratio of people, no matter the race, have a high I.Q. This means that race is not a factor in intelligence. Therefore, a program that kills many people has the potential to wipe out the next Einstien, or Heisenberg, or Hawking.What will work is voluntary control of the population. Birth control may be controversial, but definitely would help control this problem. Also, Client mentioned a program in which the government would give incentives to those who adopt. BRILLIANT! This is actually a feasible idea. Of couse the sterilization at birth is so immoral it makes my head hurt, but how about this? The government offers tax deductions for dependants, right? Just remove the writeoff for the third child and beyond. That means the families who want more than 2 kids would pay a fair amount for increasing the population. About the colony idea. When I said make Mars a colony, I did not mean imitate England's empire bid. We should immediately grant the people sent to this new world their independence, because they will eventually get it, and if they have to fight for it, they will. Posted by Sithiee on Jun. 22 2000,11:10
so your basically suggesting "dont have a kid, and we'll give you money"? how about if i tear off my arm, can i have money for that too? how about if i remain a virgin for the rest of my life? is that worth somethin? 5 bucks? jesus you people are sick. if you want to know the true effects of what your suggesting, read a book called "The Giver" in it, they have a system like yours where only certain people are allowed to reproduce, and its such a fucking controlled society, it really bites.
Posted by DuSTman on Jun. 22 2000,12:55
One thing that i really hate is peoples perception of morality. I gib someone. I feel bad about it, their family feels bad about it. Without the police that would be all. People talk of "right" and "wrong" in some higher sense but there is no suggestion that this is so. If this was so then "it is wrong to kill" would be a property of the universe, so other species would not be able to do it. Morality is a social instinct. That's all. Sure society may give the impression that if you kick pidgeons you *will* come a cropper. This is movies, not reality. Before you say something is "wrong" think about what the question was.. Posted by Client on Jun. 22 2000,15:49
This is getting very interesting...I would just like to give my support to Crissy and Bozeman for actually thinking of logical solutions...Yes, I support voluntary population control and government programs. The sterilization at birth and birthing license programs were only present in my first message to stimulate response. It worked, and I have lost a night or two too. Many individuals are stuck in American isolationist thinking...but the world does not work that way at all. To me, a couple of world wars would be enough to prove that, or maybe the effect that our country, or other countries of which we cannot pronounce their names (our inefficiency) are having on the World environment. Minimizing suffering is a world effort, and those who stand up for America before the world are planetary traitors so to speak. On the other hand, they could just be ignorant. The nation progresses and its cities do, the cities progress and its communities do. A family progresses and its members do. And for repetition, the world progresses and it's nations and cities and communities and families do. Just an interesting fact...No war or disease EVER affected the World population negatively except...The Black Death. Damn good Communist comments Crissy. Posted by Sithiee on Jun. 22 2000,18:29
you obviously have no heart whatsoever, im gonna stop talking on this "overpopulation" thread (we all know this is actually a Nazi thread in disguise
Posted by Client on Jun. 22 2000,22:02
First of all...I laugh. The goal (if any) that a empathetic human being would have would be to MINIMIZE suffering...What that guy/nut who wrote 2 replies above this one sucks. Of course population will even out or lower if we do not give a damn: but that is one hell of shitty way for it to even out: famine should NOT be a human population control device. I think that we CAN do something and people like, lets just say Mr. Sith, are the run-away-and-do-acid-until-I-forget-people that have a negative effect on the entire situation. A priest in "The Boondock Saints" said it best when describing the two evils of the world, the first being evil men, and the second being "the indifference of good men."
Posted by AnimalPrime on Jun. 22 2000,23:27
I say we get rid of everyone who isn't one of the followinga)1337 b)a female super modle or any other 1337tly hot lady c)in the matrix d)kevin smith e)the guy who made post-it notes ------------------ Posted by Hellraiser on Jun. 22 2000,23:32
That wouldn't work because even l33t people need doctors and farmers to survive. Any method of population control that includes killing or removing people who are alive and productive citizens is not a good idea. Better birth control is the ideal answer.------------------ Posted by Chrissy on Jun. 23 2000,00:17
KEVIN SMITH RULES.thats all I have to say ------------------ Posted by Cyrino on Jun. 23 2000,00:55
Hey, Chrissy, FUCK OFF!I said that Communism was good in theory because it is. BUT, when someone actually tried to enstate it, the government was corrupted and that's where it went wrong. ------------------ Posted by The_Hiro on Jun. 23 2000,02:04
Short VersionProvide no aid to Third World nations and you can expect widespread damage to the environment that will have a negative impact on all of us.
Ever heard of the slashing and burning of South American rainforests? The poaching of endangered species? Find it outrageous that people kill mountain gorillas to create ashtrays? If you aren't outraged by it, I'm sure that you can at least agree that the destruction of natural habitats and the reduction of biodiversity is a harmful practice - it creates imbalances in the ecosystem that all of us ultimately have to deal with. At this point you might be thinking to yourself, "Those Third World pricks. How dare they destroy the environment." Well, quite simply, they dare because the impoverished farmer needs grazing land for his cattle and the poacher needs to feed his family. Since these nations are economically underdeveloped, and raw unfinished goods (e.g. agricultural) are their primary export, the outcome is pretty much predetermined. That's the first reason I offer as to why we should be helping Third World countries to develop(For those of you who like to bitch and moan about 'handouts' what I'm proposing is that we teach the man to fish, not give him a supply of fish). By transforming the economies of third world countries to infrastructures based on skilled labour (as opposed to agricultural products), we can help to preserve the environment. As a general rule, people show more interest in preserving the environment when their survival isn't at stake. Reason number two: I've already argued that population growth rates decline when a country reaches the post-industrial level of development. And a simple reason for keeping populations below the 'correction' threshold is the following: the fewer of us there are the better the earth can sustain the load. In this day and age, there really is no room for regionalistic thinking. The fate of your fellow man is your fate too. Truthfully, the cost of helping Third World nations if far outweighed by the cost of not helping them. Posted by Chrissy on Jun. 23 2000,03:28
First to Cyrino-Don't get all testy with me I don't like it. I didn't tell you to "FUCK OFF" and so I didn't think it was nice that you said so to me. Not that I expect an apology or anything- just wanted to tell you. Hiro- ------------------ Posted by XaSERaX on Jun. 23 2000,05:30
eventually, the world will balance out. with millions starving and dying (already happening) and the amount of farm land reducing, will cause a large scale culling of the population naturally. ------------------ Posted by Client on Jun. 23 2000,06:15
The_Hiro is truely that...Well said man. Posted by Istari on Jun. 23 2000,18:14
quote: Where did you hear this from? As far as I knew, to achieve fusion power you had to put in more energy than you produces. It's interesting to think that we're already at this point in fusion technology....
Posted by Istari on Jun. 23 2000,18:26
quote:
What are the disadvantages and advantages of this possible solution (incentives to not have children)?
Posted by Sithiee on Jun. 23 2000,18:56
thats just it, its not a serious problem, population will level off, and personally, i think most of the people who comment on this board (myself included) have yet to see the actual effects of real overpopulation, and until they witness it firsthand and all, they should shut the fuck up.and BTW, quite a few people in germany didnt feel that the holocaust was immoral or unjustified, does that mean that it was a good solution to the "jew problem"?? Posted by Istari on Jun. 23 2000,20:46
I'm fairly concerned about overpopulation, as quite a few others here are so I see no reason in discussing the possible ideal and practical solutions to this problem. Better safe than sorry, right?You're probably right about the fact many of us have no first-hand experience with the effects of overpopulation, but that's no reason not to discuss it. We can't always go and become an expert on something before we try to engage in a conversation about it. :-) Solving the "Jew problem" in Germany during Hitler's time by mass genocide was not moral or justified in my opinion. However, I have no qualms with discussing such an option...as long as everyone realizes we will hopefully never actually go there. And even if they do, I'll still debate them about it. Just to make it clear, providing incentives to decrease the population increase is considerably different than mass murder. Yes, yes, that's only my opinion, but come on, there must be some standard here or we can't debate. That's why in a true debate you define all of the terms and concepts first.
Posted by Hellraiser on Jun. 23 2000,22:02
What the fuck was that about? I fail to see the connection between your post and the topic. Sorry, I guess I need to get some sleep.------------------ Posted by Client on Jun. 24 2000,19:51
Sithiee...You fail to realize that there is no way you could have ANY experience with overpopulation in the sense that this board is dedicated to...We are talking about WORLD overpopulation, and if you claim that that Never happens through your "leveling out" theory, there is no way you, or anyone else will get that experience. If you are saying that you have overpopulation experience, how could you be arguing the other way? (Essentially, if you HAVE seen it, then it IS a problem. If you’re talking about a safe "leveling out" then you obviously haven't had overpopulation experience!I can say i only see it through the trends of other animals and the WORLD birthrate. Animals generally do level out but its more like a HUGE exponential decline when the resources in a region (earth in our case) are exhausted. Since resources don’t build up as fast as even a "leveled" population would use them, It IS a serious problem.
Posted by Sithiee on Jun. 24 2000,23:51
i know i dont have any experience. but the point is that its not a problem, because it will level out, i think its a much better idea to assume that than to start exploring death camp or mass sterilization ideas.
Posted by AnimalPrime on Jun. 25 2000,01:39
quote: I think we have to expect that there are some 1337 farmers and doctors and ect! ------------------ Posted by aventari on Jun. 25 2000,04:44
Actually animals have 2 ways of controlling the population. I dont know if it's a 50/50 split, but either the animal population will have a 'boom & bust' cycle where they use up ALL the resources and a LOT of the population dies, then it builds up from there until they use all of the resouces again and a lot of the population dies again. (a la locusts(loci?))Or they perform a leveling off of the population when they meet the capacity of the environment. and the population stays steady. (think elephants) humans are a huge anomaly in this, so we cant really apply the animal kingdom to the discussion in my opinion.
quote: ------------------ Posted by Hohokam on Jun. 25 2000,04:59
I found an interesting article on the internet about this subject. I thought that you all might find it interesting. By Dr. Alan Thornhill of the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Rice University, Houston, Texas. ] The Question (ID Number 440)... ...and the response: How long does it take to slow this ship? Even at our current *decreasing* growth rates (that is, even if we continue to slow the growth rate to less that 1.33\% per year), our population will increase by 2 billion people in under 25 years. With a population of 8 billion we would have to drop our growth rate to 1\% per year just to maintain the current rate of number of individuals being added each year (about 80 million) in above scenario. In other words, with 8 billion people (in say, the year 2024) we would need to lower our net growth rate to 1\% per year to add ONLY an additional 80 million people per year to our population. That's only a 33\% reduction of growth rate from 25 years earlier, so that should be easy, yes? Let's say we are can continue to do the amazing and reduce our populations growth rate by 40\% each 25 years, when do we reach a population size where we are adding a minimal number of individuals each year, or, even reach zero population growth (ZPG, where there is no net increase in numbers of humans per year)? In other words, when does the ship come to a stop and just float? The current slowing rate (40\% per 25 years) puts us at about 12-13 billion people in 150 years -- at that point we will only be adding about 8 million added per year (an order of magnitude fewer than this year, or next year). Note that this is NOT ZPG, however, but it is a lot closer than we are now! There is no reason to believe that we cannot decrease the population growth rate even faster than 40\% per 25 years or 1.6\% per year (that would be slowing the acceleration faster than we are slowing the acceleration now) and if so, we can hope that the population growth rate will slow to zero (no net growth) within the next 100 years. Even so, the global human population will be 10-12 billion people, twice what it is today.
Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 26 2000,21:18
Somehow I always manage to piss off Sithiee. First, sory to all those who are mad at me. (I do not like the prospect of being "hax0red") Second, when I was talking about government incentives, I did NOT mean punish those w/3 or more kids, just reward those married couples w/1 or 2 kids with a normal, or even increased tax writeoff. The tax writeoff would simply not apply to the third child and beyond. I am NOT proposing that we go to the system of government in The Giver. (good book!) People should be free to choose their reproductive future, but those who choose to use it more should be financially responsible for their extra addition to the world. I do not condone sterilization programs, or controlled reproduction caste systems, a la The Giver. Thank you for allowing me to clarify my position, and kudos to all of the informed, insightful people posting in this forum.
Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 27 2000,09:29
what about tax breaks for those that do not reproduce? ------------------ Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 27 2000,13:05
Even though not having kids is your right, people should not get a reward for doing nothing. Plus if no one had kids because of the incentive, populations would drop lower than we want them. But a bonus, no little kids screaming at the movies.
Posted by Firefox on Jun. 27 2000,18:42
I wouldn't mind the idea of giving certain tax incentives to households with 2 or fewer children. I would NEVER want an intrusive law, however, that would require in any way, a certain quota on children. It's the choice of the individual person to how many children they have. To be honest, though, I get kinda peeved when I see those families with like 10 kids, all on welfare. Not to sound cruel or anything, but I really think that having a child shouldn't be a spur of the moment thing. There are so many factors involved in that decision, and I think a primary one should be a financial consideration- if you aren't making a lot of money, maybe it would be wise to hold off on that 5th child until you are a little more secure in the money department. I think this is just common sense, although it's surprising how often I see it.-FFox Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 28 2000,15:52
Well spoke, Firefox.
|