Poll: Would you support a human Genophage?

[WoW Killer]

We've got, at a minimum, hundreds of generations before it would become a real concern

Hundreds of generations? That's in the thousands of years. Our population has increased from 6 billion to 7 billion in just 13 years.

Bugger it, lets say a flat 100 generations, and 2.4 children average (world average is still higher than this by the way; world growth in 2011 was at 1.1% which equates to about 2.63 children per couple with a 25 year generation). Starting at todays 7 billion, assuming no dire catastrophes e.g. world starvation (lol!). After 100 generations we would have:

7,000,000,000 * 1.2^100 = 579,725,821,654,101,851

That's around five hundred and seventy nine quadrillion, seven hundred and twenty five trillion, and eight hundred and twenty one point six billion people.

The point is we're never going to see that, and we'll be lucky to see anything like 12-13 billion, because we just don't have the resources to feed that many people. The population will decline by starvation if by nothing else. But do we step in to stop such a thing? Left unchecked, there's one universal truth about humans from all across the globe: we'll never stop shagging.

 

[Vuljatar]

Ha ha! I shall use this as an opportunity to use your argument against thou!

[citation needed] Explain thy self! Explain thy reasoning for thine statement!

The burden of proof rests with those who posit the theory. And I am not convinced, not by a long shot. Past history shows that doomsayers in general, the environmentalist types in particular, make wildly inaccurate predictions of armageddon either out of fear or simply misunderstanding the data.

 

[Yopaz]

Limiting the numbers of birth is a good idea, but I think China has the right idea. Give them a choice to get a second kid, but make sure they can afford to pay extra for it. Reducing fertility is not the way. Increasing level of education and welfare will in time reduce the birthrates and it could possibly improve our agriculture making it possible to feed more people.

 

[CityofTreez]

`The hell is wrong with this forum?

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Right, we're totally overpopulated. Until we get one human per every square inch of this planet, we'll be fine. Sure, we won't be as healthy, or have any personal space, but we will survive.

 

[tobi the good boy]

We've got, at a minimum, hundreds of generations before it would become a real concern

Hundreds of generations? That's in the thousands of years. Our population has increased from 6 billion to 7 billion in just 13 years.

Bugger it, lets say a flat 100 generations, and 2.4 children average (world average is still higher than this by the way; world growth in 2011 was at 1.1% which equates to about 2.63 children per couple with a 25 year generation). Starting at todays 7 billion, assuming no dire catastrophes e.g. world starvation (lol!). After 100 generations we would have:

7,000,000,000 * 1.2^100 = 579,725,821,654,101,851

That's around five hundred and seventy nine quadrillion, seven hundred and twenty five trillion, and eight hundred and twenty one point six billion people.

The point is we're never going to see that, and we'll be lucky to see anything like 12-13 billion, because we just don't have the resources to feed that many people. The population will decline by starvation if by nothing else. But do we step in to stop such a thing? Left unchecked, there's one universal truth about humans from all across the globe: we'll never stop shagging.

The problem with that is, most overpopulation issues aren't a result of more people being born (or shagging as you so beautifully put it). It's that we're living longer. That's primarily why the boon in the past few years has been linked to the increase in country development, longer life-spans means the death - birth ratio has become skewed.

OT: I would not inflict the genophage upon the human race unless it was absolutely necessary, which at this current state, it most certainly isn't.

 

[Canadish]

No.

Why?

Because it's sociopathic, immoral, and needless?

Because we have more then enough food and space for everyone, and "shortages" are mostly caused by the way our economic system flows?

Because "overpopulation" figures are often misleading and ignore that our population in Western societies are actually aging and we're having less and less children?

And that infertility is at an all time high?

That more people of using contraception then ever before?


The only problem is that we just don't need that many people anymore.
So much manual labor work has been replaced by machines, and advances in computing have been so huge that automation is better then ever. One worker can do the same amount as 10 or more could in the past, and in half the time.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

Zach Weiner knows the solution to the crisis. Also a brilliant webcomic. http://www.smbc-comics.com

Spoiler: SMBC WILL SHOW US THE WAY

 

[someonehairy-ish]

[citation needed]

Seriously, this "overpopulation" hysteria is about as accurate and realistic as a Mayan apocalypse prediction. We've got, at a minimum, hundreds of generations before it would become a real concern--barring the very likely event of some sort of technological advancement that renders the point entirely moot. And either way, by then we'll have colonized other worlds.

http://www.wwf.se/press/1139342-nu-verkonsumerar-vi-jordens-resurser-med-30-procent

Since I assume that you don't know Swedish, I'll just have you know that this article states that by 2050 we'll need two earth's to be able to sustain our lifestyle. At the present moment we over consume 30% of the earths resources.

And I don't believe that any more than I believe the world will end on December 21st.

Do you understand how exponentials work? The more people there are, the more people there are to produce more people. The global population has been expanding at a rate of about 1 billion people every <15 years since the 60s. It's getting faster though. The expansion from 6 to 7 billion only took 12 years. Assuming the trend continues we're looking at a global population of around... 11 billion? At least?
To make matters worse, improving healthcare means people are living longer. So less people are dying off to offset the increase.
And then you look at the fact that many resources are rapidly disappearing (fossil fuels and fish are the most obvious ones.)

The idea that we're basically fucked as a species and a planet if we continue like this isn't based on some silly superstition. Don't forget that even if we do colonise mars or the moon or whatever, those colonies will still be using up Earth's resources because growing enough food and the like on mars itself to support a large population there would be nearly impossible. Even if plants can grow in martian soil, you still need nutrients and water to make em grow...

 

[ksn0va]

Yes, definitely yes! Not because of overpopulation though, but for other reasons everyone is largely aware of.

 

[Rariow]

Nope. It's up to the individual to choose whether to help the species by not reproducing, not to the state. I'd say we should fight for, as Saren put it, these "petty freedoms". Nature is able to control this kind of stuff. If we don't stop growing, we'll just wipe out about 2/3 of our population via water wars (Scheduled to become common soon enough) and move on. This might be harsh of me to say, but I think it's preferable.

 

[Flight]

Yes, I would, provided there would be a possibility for a cure in the future. Earth's resources are hardly infinite, and with the way people are breeding, it might not be long before things go down the drain. That said, I don't think the idea of such population control should be permanent; people should be educated and prepared, instead.

 

[Ignatz_Zwakh]

It's not my place to decide such things. I'm not even sure if one could handle something like this in a correct fashion, likely not. The mindset required is pretty.....out there.

 

[Deathmageddon]

Honestly, no idea. I don't think something like that will ever be implemented, It's more likely that we'll find a way to survive in harsher climates (like the stillsuits from Dune) and make better use of renewable resources (not to sound like a hippie).

 

[gim73]

He wasn't saying that one out of three pregnancies would fail, he was saying that only one out of three females would be viable for fertilization. I think that's still too high. Knowing people, they would try to push out 20-25 children out of each of those poor women.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

No, not even a tiny tiny bit. What is with all the threads lately trying to get everyone on The Escapist to condone some kind of genocide?

 

[Tomeran]

I'd answer both yes and no to your question.

First, I'd favour some measure of population control. Limiting the number of children one can have per family might be effective, but its one of the more cruel measures. Instead(but much more difficult)an alternative would be to introduce a more tolerable, informed and cultural change in terms of birth control measures. Also, helping developing countries..well..develop. As has been hinted, they stand for the majority of the planets population-explosions.

Unfortunetly, we're rapidly approaching the point where things are getting out of hand, despite what some completly oblivious conservatives would have you belive. Mind you, the same people that dont belive earth is reaching over-population are usually also the same kind of people that belive birth-control is the work of the DEVIL and that global warming is hippie/commie propaganda.


But im trailing off.

Would I support a mass-effect styled genophage? Hell no.

The salarians released it upon the krogan as a purely desperate measure, and Krogan are nothing like humans. Despite what the salarians call it to defend their descicion, it is a sterility plague that are absolutly brutal and traumatizing to the entire krogan species. Krogans live long looong lives, and have many babies! But even under these circumstances it is absolutly devastating to the krogan species, and to humans, we'd dissepear in a century or two.

If we're talking about a less serious genophage, adapted to human circumstances like our smaller birthrate and much shorter lives, our race would probably survive, but I still think it would be very morally wrong, even if it was an effort to save our planet from over-population. This would be an easy and fast solution, but as it is so often, the easy and fast solution can be morally corrupt.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

Yes, definitely yes! Not because of overpopulation though, but for other reasons everyone is largely aware of.

The fact you are a misanthrope who hates the human race? That is generally the impression I get from most people who post in favor of things like this.

 

[dimensional]

No I wouldnt support it I dont think it would solve much either and would lead to other problems no the best thing is just to let it sort itself out via war,faminine,laws etc things have a way of working themselves out crippling your species is not really a smart move.

 

[Henkie36]

Well, most people say that the biggest concern with the growing population is the food supply, but it's not. There's plenty of food for everyone, it's just not divided equally. Same can be said for the water. Even things like energy and required space to live on isn't our biggest concern. It's the fact that generally, people can't stand eachother. More people means more cultures, and that means more differences. So at one point, the smaller cultures are going to become extinct and the world will start polarizing. Not too long after, war will break and we'll start back at status quo. Alright, this maybe a little bit exaggerated, but I do genuinly believe this is what humanity is heading for.