Poll: Would you support a human Genophage?

[The Lesbian Flower]

I would never take away someone's fertility but rather do what China did and put a limit on the number of kids one can have.

 

[kickyourass]

I say yes, one need only look at the fact that an enormous number (I can't find a specific number I trust but it's still alot) of people on this planet that are currently starving to death to see that this planet can't sustain our population. I think that until we can reliably colonize other planets something like this would be the best way to keep out population from causing the environment from imploding.

No. Who would get to judge who gets infected by this virus? I know whoever gets to judge will eventually use it against other people as a weapon and not as a tool to help the world. Soon enough someone else could get their hands on it and could release it world wide. Also no one in the world has the right to say who can and cannot have children.

That wouldn't be a problem (Or at least not the same problem you're describing) because this would be a species wide thing, no one is unaffected.

 

[AdmiralMemo]

I want one, but I do want it biased. I want it biased against stupid people.

 

[AngloDoom]

I'd prefer some sort of application process before you could have a child. Like, everyone is born infertile, and then they get their fertility 'unlocked' upon passing a test that measures how good a parent you would make, as well as whether you are financially able to support that said child.

Not that I think overpopulation is a problem, I've no idea on the subject, but I think it's weird that some people may have difficulty proving they are legally able to purchase alcohol or drive a car, but can bring a child into the world.

 

[Yopaz]

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.

You discredit what is most likely the biggest computer simulation ever done and say there's no proof for it? Sure it's a computer simulation with the condition that things keep going the way they are, but it has in fact been done in several different ways to see insecurities, how things will go with improving technology, increasing wealth in poor countries and not all results are this grim. However if nothing changes that statistic is still worthy of some degree of worrying. Basically you discredit a computer simulation and defend your stance with "Prove it" and say that you have to be able to defend your theory while not being able to defend yours. I don't think that statistic is very accurate since they probably chose the worst possible outcome to emphasize it. However resources are depleting the way it is and the population is increasing rapidly. If nothing changes this is a disaster that we actually can see in its coming.

 

[Asita]

Humans can get past this problem by taking all the miltaries funding and putting it into space exploration and colonisation. LETS GO TO FUCKING MARS ALREADY! btw, The krogans only had a genophage cause they were rebelling and trying to kill everyone, overcrowding had nothing to do with it. Nobody is doing anything to my junk unless it involves several beatiful people and some whippy cream.

Well first of all, the former wouldn't help at all given that Mars is a barren world incapable of sustaining human life. In essence any colonization of Mars would only result in more space to put our growing population without addressing the real concern about the resources needed to maintain a population of that size. The problem would in fact be exacerbated by the fact that you'd have the population of two planets dependant on the resources of one.

Second: You're kinda ignoring the lore of Mass Effect. The Krogan rebellions were a direct result of the Krogan's incredibly high birthrate and their need for rapid expansion to sustain it, leading them to conquer planets belonging to other races so that the ever increasing population would have the resources needed to survive. While it is true that the genophage would never have been deployed were it not for the Krogan rebellions, the rebellions were a direct result of the krogan's population issues.

 

[Apollo45]

The entire population of the world could fit comfortably within the borders of the United States with an acre to each family (of around 4). And the entire world could be fed off of the food currently being produced in the United States.

Frankly, I think we're fine for a while yet.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

I'd prefer some sort of application process before you could have a child. Like, everyone is born infertile, and then they get their fertility 'unlocked' upon passing a test that measures how good a parent you would make, as well as whether you are financially able to support that said child.

Not that I think overpopulation is a problem, I've no idea on the subject, but I think it's weird that some people may have difficulty proving they are legally able to purchase alcohol or drive a car, but can bring a child into the world.

I used to like this, but then I realized that meant that the state would be given nearly absolute control over the primary agent of socialization. I don't like the implications of that. While parenting is incredibly important and therefore not something we want untrustworthy people to engage in, it is that importance that makes controlling it so powerful.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

No. Once we have all nations developed to a large degree there will be a general greying of populations and people will be having smaller families. Basically, we just need a fairer distributions of wealth.

 

[Sejs Cube]

No, I wouldn't support it for a couple reasons.

1. In the long term, we aren't fucking over the planet. Frankly, we're pretty much incapable of fucking over the planet. The planet is way, way tougher than we are. The earth is a goddamn champ at adapting to new circumstances, and most life goes right a long with it. The only thing we're really at risk of doing is fucking over ourselves. Assuming that our own welfare is also the planet's welfare is really kind of egocentric, even if it is a common viewpoint.

2. Pressure drives adaptation and innovation, and just because it's uncomfortable doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing. Want to explore space? Going to need an impetus to do so. Want to develop socially and technologically? Going to need an impetus to do so. Nothing to solve means no need to evolve.

3. Social freedoms. Curbing people's right to a basic, biological function such as reproduction is a pretty big deal and is not something to be undertaken lightly.

4. It wouldn't work. In Mass Effect, the genophage only really works because the salarians are very advanced bioscientists, and the krogan don't have a great deal of their own scientific or technological development due to the particulars of their society. The krogan get curtailed and they aren't sciencey enough on their own to see their way past it. But anything humanity could do to itself, it could likewise fix having been done to itself. And would. A human-inflicted human genophage wouldn't stick for long.

 

[Pandabearparade]

I'm skeptical of the entire premise your question is based upon. There is a lot of unused arable land in the world. Exponential population growth is something humans will eventually have to find a solution for, but we're centuries away from the point of having no land for farming left.

 

[ccggenius12]

I feel that a competent sex robot would do more to stifle population growth than a disease, and it's far more likely to be produced.

 

[Darkmantle]

I had an interesting conversation today about overpopulation. It's not really a point of contention that there are (or soon will be) more humans than the planet can comfortably sustain. At 8ish billion, food and resources already come at the cost of exploitation and wholesale destruction of Earth?s ecology, and soon it will reach the point where there simply isn't any more left to consume. Eventually, barring some major technological intervention (spacetravel, etc.) we're going to drive ourselves to extinction. Anyway, I was thinking that in order to reverse population growth and the strain on our resources, one hypothetical option could be a genophage type fertility control administered to the human race, as with the Krogan in Mass Effect. Something completely random and non-biased, to avoid the obvious ethical and sociological issues with having any kind of selective cull. And obviously not to the extreme as in Mass Effect, but significantly reduced fertility, say one in three. I don't mean to come off misanthropic and anti-humanist (though humanism really hasn't done the planet any favours), just speculating on a solution to a problem. Yes I am aware this is not an absolutely urgently pressing world issue quite yet, and that the technology is not even close to existent, it is merely a thought provoking topic.

So what do you think? Would you be in favour?

or we could just educate everyone. As a population gets more and more educated, they come closer and closer to a replacement birthrate. most first world countries are almost there if not there already, but most if not all third world countries have population skyrocketing. much better than a genophage.

 

[WoW Killer]

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).

Oh, birth rates haven't increased no, in fact they've decreased particularly in the West due to contraceptive use (shagging rates are constant of course ). But what's also decreased over time is infant mortality rates. The crucial stat is how many children you have that reach adulthood. Say in the past you might have 6 children but 3 die during childhood; that's the same as having 3 children and all reaching adulthood.

But the reason you get population explosions is because each generation has more people to begin with; it's like a geometric progression. Going from 6 billion to 7 billion is a 16.7% increase. Going from 7 billion to 8.1 billion (100 million more) is a 15.7% increase. Your percentage rate of increase (actual, as in births to deaths) can be decreasing year on year, but the flat increase may still be increased each year. Given that it's taken around 13 years to go from 6 billion to 7 billion people, going from 7 billion to 8 billion will likely take less than 13 years, and so on.

Ultimately so long as the average person has more than two children that reach adulthood, then the worlds population will increase.

On topic: No, I don't support direct population control, just education; lots and lots of education. I do believe benefits systems could do with a tweak regarding large families, but a Chinese style tax on each child above one seems a bit harsh.

 

[AngloDoom]

I'd prefer some sort of application process before you could have a child. Like, everyone is born infertile, and then they get their fertility 'unlocked' upon passing a test that measures how good a parent you would make, as well as whether you are financially able to support that said child.

Not that I think overpopulation is a problem, I've no idea on the subject, but I think it's weird that some people may have difficulty proving they are legally able to purchase alcohol or drive a car, but can bring a child into the world.

I used to like this, but then I realized that meant that the state would be given nearly absolute control over the primary agent of socialization. I don't like the implications of that. While parenting is incredibly important and therefore not something we want untrustworthy people to engage in, it is that importance that makes controlling it so powerful.

Agreed, it's not an ideal set of events. I was undecided on it at first, until I heard a mother saying she wouldn't buy her children educational toys because "I don't want her to be a boff" (boff = smart person).

It made me do a sad.

Still, there's no real 'good' answer to it all. People only learn how to be a parent off of their parents and off of absorbing random influences from the media as it is. I think if the guidelines were loose enough to take into account different styles of parenting, but rigid enough to not become completely meaningless, I'd be all for it - sort of like a dissertation.
It's unlikely we'll ever get to the point where we can trust authorities with our children like that, though. I'll remain optimistic, though.

 

[Evil Smurf]

I think we should all euthanize people over 60 years old so that we keep the population down, oh lets nuke china too. SARCASM

 

[The Pinray]

I think I'm more in favor of practicing safe sex and not having children that you can't afford.

 

[Vivi22]

Absolutely not. Nature has it's own mechanisms for population control, and should the population actually reach unsustainable levels it will self-right through things such as war, famine, and disease to name a few. There's absolutely no reason to cripple human ability to reproduce and survive such very real potential future dangers simply to make the process more palatable. Because frankly, dealing with straying too far into over population shouldn't be neat and tidy. It should be really fucking traumatic so future generations are given pause.

Moreover, the idea that humans are even capable of competently managing our numbers by manipulating our own biology is frightening because we are remarkably bad at doing such things and not having it blow up in our faces as often as everything turns out fine.

And frankly, all this says nothing of the fact that in first world nations populations would generally decline without immigration. You want to curb the population boom, let's raise the standard of living in third world countries and start spreading the word about birth control.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

I'd prefer some sort of application process before you could have a child. Like, everyone is born infertile, and then they get their fertility 'unlocked' upon passing a test that measures how good a parent you would make, as well as whether you are financially able to support that said child.

Not that I think overpopulation is a problem, I've no idea on the subject, but I think it's weird that some people may have difficulty proving they are legally able to purchase alcohol or drive a car, but can bring a child into the world.

I used to like this, but then I realized that meant that the state would be given nearly absolute control over the primary agent of socialization. I don't like the implications of that. While parenting is incredibly important and therefore not something we want untrustworthy people to engage in, it is that importance that makes controlling it so powerful.

Agreed, it's not an ideal set of events. I was undecided on it at first, until I heard a mother saying she wouldn't buy her children educational toys because "I don't want her to be a boff" (boff = smart person).

It made me do a sad.

Still, there's no real 'good' answer to it all. People only learn how to be a parent off of their parents and off of absorbing random influences from the media as it is. I think if the guidelines were loose enough to take into account different styles of parenting, but rigid enough to not become completely meaningless, I'd be all for it - sort of like a dissertation.
It's unlikely we'll ever get to the point where we can trust authorities with our children like that, though. I'll remain optimistic, though.

I'm not too huge on arbitrary individualism, so the idea of a trustworthy collective having control over who is and isn't allowed to raise children is something I would totally on board with. I just don't believe in collectives that are that trustworthy. Like you I will remain hopeful though. I suppose that it would be more likely that all of humanity wold learn how to be better parents first though to be honest.

 

[Right Hook]

by then we'll have colonized other worlds.

Haha, no. I wish and hope so but anyone with the funds seems to have their head jammed up their own ass on a private island somewhere, you'd think finding a planet made of diamonds would have got these lazy fucks off their asses.

OP, I don't support global population control, I support education, if this ever really becomes a problem, an educated society would make the right choices and have less or more children in accordance. We don't need all this hand-holding, we need an intelligent populace.