Poll: Would you support a human Genophage?

[Revnak_v1legacy]

We already have one. It's called education. The problem is that education costs money and requires social stability. So the solution to population control is absurdly similar to the solution to all of the world's other problems, stop fucking up society. Really, I see absolutely no reason to believe humanity needs to have its population controlled, we tend to form society in such a manner that the favored number of children leads to a stable population level. Some people just don't understand that there is absolutely no good reason to have more than two or three children these days. If they were educated, they'd figure that out.

 

[Vuljatar]

It's not really a point of contention that there are (or soon will be) more humans than the planet can comfortably sustain.

[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.

 

[IamQ]

It's not really a point of contention that there are (or soon will be) more humans than the planet can comfortably sustain.

[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.

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!

 

[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.