Ways to deal with overpopulation

[rapidoud]

Australia can't handle more population, It's not just about space. Some predicted 35million cap but we're straining now.

Although countries that are wasting more than they are producing with no foreseeable increase should have extensive population control going (US currently).

 

[Jimmy T. Malice]

The latest series of Torchwood (although it's obviously fiction) seems to suggest that we really wouldn't be able to deal with overpopulation.

 

[Lukeje]

It's not really 7 billion. It's only about 7,000,000,000 people (i.e. seven thousand million). I still don't understand why Americans use the short scale...

...

Is that a joke, or am I missing something here :s

A billion is technically a million millions. Not a thousand millions.

It's supposed to be a geometric progression(I think that's the term, don't quote me on it). 10x10=100 100x100=1,000 1,000x1,000=1,000,000 1,000,000x1,000,000=1,000,000,000,000

i.e. a billion.

But for some reason the US shortened a billion to 1,000,000,000. A thousand millions. Not a million.

That was harder to explain that I would have liked. :/

The idea is that 1 million is 1 x 10[sup]6[/sup], 1 billion is (1 million)[sup]2[/sup], 1 trillion is (1 million)[sup]3[/sup], etc.

 

[kannibus]

PIGS IN SPACE!

That is the only way, besides having a nice friendly little war.

 

[ZephyrFireStrom]

It's pretty obvious isn't it? It's probably already been said before but restrict breeding, hell reduce sex altogether. You stupid humans need to learn to control yourselves anyway. Also another world war, absolute world war, everyone at each others throats. That will reduce the numbers very quickly. Civilian casualties? Bah no such thing, everyone is a target.

But fact remains. You humans need to learn to control yourselves, as it stands you people rival that of ancient times, very little has changed since then. And also war. Long over due for a proper earth changing war.

 

[blankedboy]

It's not really 7 billion. It's only about 7,000,000,000 people (i.e. seven thousand million). I still don't understand why Americans use the short scale...

...

Is that a joke, or am I missing something here :s

A billion is technically a million millions. Not a thousand millions.

It's supposed to be a geometric progression(I think that's the term, don't quote me on it). 10x10=100 100x100=1,000 1,000x1,000=1,000,000 1,000,000x1,000,000=1,000,000,000,000

i.e. a billion.

But for some reason the US shortened a billion to 1,000,000,000. A thousand millions. Not a million.

That was harder to explain that I would have liked. :/

Eh, the geometric way isn't taught in my school (new zealand, for the record), so we use the arithmetic way because "a thousand millions" just sounds awkward and redudant. So we have 10^9 for billion, 10^12 for trillion, 10^15 for quadrillion etc.

 

[ScreamingNinja]

In the Grim Darkness of the future, there is only War.

Warhammer 40k five! Whooo!

And this is how the winnars roll. I love how everyone's talking about colonising mars. Because of course we're still not over populated so there's no point doing that..

 

[funguy2121]

I was watching the news a few days back and there was a quick report on world population. This year there will be approximately 7 billion people living on Earth. I did a little research on the projected population growth world wide and found the numbers to be quite disturbing. While I was researching I started pondering about the issue of population control and how society would rationalizes euthanizing humans or restrict certain people from reproducing and even going as far as genetically altering humans to restrict longevity. I'm curious to see everyone's thoughts on this controversial topic and please keep it civil.

Incentives, though it won't work on its own. Stop rewarding people with a tax break for having children. I know people who have offered for me to "claim" their child on my taxes so I could recoup thousands of dollars that did not belong to me (I said no). Instead, reward families who adopt children. Give tax breaks to people who purchase a certain amount of contraceptives a year. Persuade the Catholic church to reverse its stance on contraception.

Also: terraforming. Neil Armstrong is right about NASA.

 

[ScreamingNinja]

It's pretty obvious isn't it? It's probably already been said before but restrict breeding, hell reduce sex altogether. You stupid humans need to learn to control yourselves anyway. Also another world war, absolute world war, everyone at each others throats. That will reduce the numbers very quickly. Civilian casualties? Bah no such thing, everyone is a target.

But fact remains. You humans need to learn to control yourselves, as it stands you people rival that of ancient times, very little has changed since then. And also war. Long over due for a proper earth changing war.

You srs? 'You humans' ? I lol'd.

 

[CounterReproductive]

Simple answer, Mass Suicide, make people want to die.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

STOP FUCKING LIKE RABBITS!

Seriously. What is wrong with people?

Hell, it's not like we don't have systems to let you continue that and not destroy the planet. Just pick your favourite. You cannot justify having more than two children, considering they all survive these days, and that many children is irritating anyway.

lol, pick up a book.

Fact: We have an aging population.
Fact: This means in 40-50 years, there will be fewer people in America, Europe and most developed countries than there are now.
Fact: There is not a shortage of food, but inability to provide existing food to those who need it.
Fact: Aside from places like China, or where the population doesn't have access to birth control methods, people are NOT screwing like rabbits unprotected. They're choosing when to have kids, and most people are going with 1-2, like you said.

Opinion: The 1-child rule doesn't work. It's really screwing up Chinese culture, too. Everyone wants sons->nobody wants daughters->infanticide/other injustices->not enough chinese women around, etc.

To everyone (not the guy I quoted): I know it's easy to look at "overpopulation" and have a knee-jerk smug reaction because nerds can't get laid or whatever reason, but the hatred that streams out of some of these contents really should get modded. Don't advocate the death of millions if you don't feel comfortable committing suicide right now. It feels hypocritical. We all have a right to live, and social darwinism is a TERRIBLE concept that gave rise to some of the worst social injustices in 20th-century America.

Simple answer, Mass Suicide, make people want to die.

Oh really? Which people should we target first? >_> Isn't this just murdering people in an indirect way?

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

In the current market, America can't support more people. We've already got a fast-growing poverty rate and our middle class is shrinking as the rich become richer and the not-rich become poorer, compounded by the lack of available jobs with which to support ourselves. We need to cut back on population growth until our economy can adjust to the growing rate of globalization and the new market challenges it's bringing (that we're failing to cope with)

Or you could stop trying out those incredibly wierd taxation laws where the middle- and lower classes (i.e the people with the least means) to pay the most taxes, but the higher classes (i.e the people with the ABSIOLUTE MOST means) pay less of a percentage.

You know, like a REASONABLE taxation system where the ones with the actual means to pay more get obligated to do so?

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

I know it's easy to look at "overpopulation" and have a knee-jerk smug reaction because nerds can't get laid or whatever reason, but the hatred that streams out of some of these contents really should get modded.

Yeah, because oppressive censorship just makes the world a better place in general, right? *facepalm*

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Pensions get subsidised. The average pensioner has only paid about half of what they'll use.

I know where you're coming from about the motivation to get people to work. But that doesn't change the fact that it's still an issue. The government haemorrhages money on old people. And before you blast me for being insensitive. I'm not saying we should just abandon them. What I am saying is that an ageing population presents a very real and potentially crippling problem.

And I'm wondering how we're going to deal with it.

Once again: insensitivity has nothing to do with it, so I don't really care how "insensitive" you might sound. It's just that claiming that "old people" are basically just a haemorrhage on society is a clear slippery slope towards the notion that somehow they "have to go".

Now if we put that line of reasoning into practice, societal collapse would be pretty much a guarantee because no one would have any interest in working for a society that's basically just going to dump them (or severely reduce their already reduced quality of life) once they're too old to work.

It would rather be a case of where everyone is pulling in different directions (which would lead to exactly nothing constructive) as opposed to the current model where most people pull towards the same direction, although some people to old to pull get pulled by the younger ones.

So to summarize: the motivational factor of subsidised pensions are a reason in itself why it should be kept around, because without it we'd eventually not have much of a government (or society for that matter) to speak of.

There are plenty of both expensive and counter-productive "projects" that most governments indulge in, which also haemorrhage on society greatly that could do with some serious cut-backs (certain government defense budgets being one of them, especially when those "defense" budgets go to funding wars of aggression rather than any kind of "defense").

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

This is how people will then react accordingly:

Step 1: A lot of people will be pissed. Not many will speak out though because of fear but large to small scale riots will occur world wide depending on location.

Step 2: You start killing off loved ones and what happens? Full scale revolution. Might not be organized but it will be very effective. Social and Economic collapse within days, overpopulation might collapse everything with a few hundred years but revolution would do it in days.

Step 3: Step 3 doesn't get a chance to happen because of step 2.

In short I think we should be looking to see how we can provide more food and space to people rather than killing them off.

BUT if we reverse the steps, what would happen then?

First the "killing off developing countries". It will gather huge media coverage and the general population will see just to what lengths the evil government will go to to reach it's goals. Dissenters will be treated harshly which will also garner media coverage. Some outcries might occurs with protests and the like, but the issue will most likely be ignored because the slaughter is simply something happening to "other people" in the minds of most citizens, even if they certainly learn the lesson that the government and it's military are CERTAINLY not organisations one would like to piss off.

Second, the "random killings" start occuring. The government can blame "national security reasons" if they like. Now people will most likely have a negative reaction to this, but with the government acting the way it did against developing countries fresh in memory, most citizens would've learned to fear the government and what it can do if you cross it. So the "rioting" would be much less minimal, and with the extreme violence used against rioters by the police, people would eventually call it a day and just accept that there's no stopping the coming police-state.

And finally, the government enacts birth control policies. And everyone will accept it because they have no desire whatsoever to cross a government capable of such brutality as the previous steps have shown.

Hehehe, given the motivation I'd be a rather excellent evil dictator. It's all a matter of timing and understanding of human psychology. >

 

[sivlin]

It's not really 7 billion. It's only about 7,000,000,000 people (i.e. seven thousand million). I still don't understand why Americans use the short scale...

But anyway. There's still more than enough food and space to go around, so I don't see what the problem is.

To be honest, I had absolutely no idea that the term "billion" didn't mean the same thing everywhere. Regardless, after Wikipedia, I now know. I am, of course, biased to the American way - but I do feel like our "short" way allows you to better articulate in most situations. You will rarely have a situation where you would need to say "billion" if you were using the "long" way. Alternatively, the short billion comes up ALL the time. It is quicker to say 7 billion than 7 thousand million.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

One square meter is not a lot of space for a person.

It's also far from enough space to support the life of one person. On average, even the most poor individuals of the world use up resources from a lot more earth space than what can really fit in the space of one square meter, and that's only to be able to stay alive (hence why I used the poorest individuals rather than "average income" individuals, who use up EVEN MORE resources than what could fit on one square meter than the poor people do).

I mean, these people who bury their heads in the sand about the problem should really try to figure out how they would insure their own survival if they only had one square meter of land to grow their own food and find their own water on.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

'Slippery slope' arguments are just stupid. It's like saying "Eating carrots is a slippery slope. One day you'll be protesting outside slaughter houses because you think eating meat is wrong." You can apply that retarded logic to almost anything to come up with negative points for it.

I didn't say anything about 'offing the grannies' I'm just pointing out the FACT that older people don't contribute as much as they take. Couple that with the fact that our population is ageing. Thanks to modern medicine and hygiene. And you are presented with a very real and very imminent issue.

I'm not suggesting what we do about it. I'm just pointing out that something needs to be done. Whether that means we cut off one of these other 'projects' or simply find an alternative means of funding this issue, I don't know. All I'm saying is that there is an issue. And sticking your head in the sand about it isn't productive.

Slippery slope arguments aren't stupid when the very thing someone else suggests is a pretty clear cut case of being a very real slippery slope.

What would be the point of "innocently" pointing out this "problem" when:

A. everybody's already aware of that it's going on.

and

B. there's really no constructive and viable alternative to it?

Also, one should consider what a "society" is actually for. According to most people, a society's perpetuation is hardly a goal in itself, but society is a social construct, put in place to guarantee most people with a decent standard of quality of life.

Hence, "old people" costing resources isn't so much a "problem" as it is a natural concluscion of what society is supposed to do. (making sure that even the old people of society have a decent standard of quality of life)

 

[Samurai Goomba]

I know it's easy to look at "overpopulation" and have a knee-jerk smug reaction because nerds can't get laid or whatever reason, but the hatred that streams out of some of these contents really should get modded.

Yeah, because oppressive censorship just makes the world a better place in general, right? *facepalm*

Nah, man, I'm saying there's already oppressive censorship about certain topics (piracy, adblock, racism against minorities), so how is advocating the death of millions okay?

 

[MinishArcticFox]

We'll go to war over the scant remaining resources and land. It will be bitter and long and probably fought by our children at the soonest but it will take care of our over population. Not too pleasant but in my opinion it's the most likely scenario.