Nikolaz72 said:And I see it as neccesary to switch to alternative energy sources for the sake of our survival. People have simply proven that they are not able to be responsible with their use for coal and oil. And as such soceity should step in and regulate it in order to save our resources. Screw the friggin oil companies. If we have to survive as a species we 'need' to switch to alternative energysources.Therumancer said:I see it as being nessicary, simply because if the population does not decrease drastically we're all dead. It's easy to make arguements about why we shouldn't do something extreme like this, but in the final equasion we're running out of resources, it's not a matter of production and producing enough stuff, but that things like wood, oil, metal and similar materials are being depleted faster than the planet can recover, and in the effort to sustain the current usage we're crippling the planet's abillity to replentish them at all through things like strip mining.gunner1905 said:I know this is off topic, but people like you who wants that kinds of laws should really do some reading about population and productivity. I agree that overpopulation is a problem if productivity of the people is not increased, through technology or education, but your idea of decreasing the younger population is dumb because old people are living longer, less young productive people are born (no matter what you think of someone, they produces something through participation in the economy), over time it increases the number of people that needs to be supported (old people) over the number of productive people (young people). See the Europe (especially GB) and Japan for real life examples.Therumancer said:To be honest with overpopulation I've been a big fan of mandatory, reversible sterlization on all people in the USA or anyone living here, and requiring people to get permission from the goverment to have kids, which would be granted only after being able to prove the abillity to support them, and an appropriate amount of parenting knowlege before the birth.
Also do you really want someone else violating your body without your consent.
OT: The guy's dumb.
You are correct, what I propose would absolutly suck for a while, and would cause a number of problems that would have to be dealt with, quite probably with extreme brutality, in ways that would be offensive to current morality. It is however the right move in the long run. At least for a generation or four we need a massive decrease in the global population and then to stabilize it at that level.
As far as not wanting the goverment (or anyone else) modifying your body like that? In my opinion that's tough cookies. People knew that we needed ZPG (Zero Population Growth) generations ago and instead the population continued to expand. Like it or not, people have generally proven to be incapable of holding back their reproductive urges, so thus society as a whole needs to step in if the problem is going to be dealt with.
A lot of what I say is VERY nasty, and to many (on this subject and others) I seem like the devil. The thing is that it's all about the big picture, not simply the immediate effects over the next few years or even decades, but about what needs to be done when you look at things in terms of hundreds or thousands of years.
Sure it sucks to see a small young generation, and a huge old generation, and then to have to realize your going to have to basically leave those old people un-supported or dispose of them for a generation or two until society adapts to the much lower birth rate, but that's a comparitively small price to pay in the overall scheme of things, if we wind up depleting the world's resources we're going to wind up destroying ourselves. I could go into it point by point, but really it's not the time or place. It's something that has come up for discussion in the past.
In general this, and a lot of my personal politics and idealogy comes down to reality sucking, and trying to pretend that it doesn't just makes things worse.
*Insert statement with proof that global warming isnt manmade*
Well then, guess what. Population in the west is -falling- as a country becomes richer people start having fewer kids and the population of western countries is falling, we actually have a problem with there soon not being enough working people to support the elderly. A valid theory is that once countries (Like India, China and Africa) becomes richer (Saying theory but its already been proven) they will start having fewer kids. As they get richer over time its estimated that world population will balance out in around 2100-2200. As such, if that theory stands. We dont need to control overpopulation we merely need to accept that the Third-world (And second-world) Countries are getting richer. And support that progress, if we do that then overpopulation wont be an issue as lots of kids comes from high fatality-rates amongst children and (Being flippin poor) which falls drastically in technologically advanced area's with a stable economy.
OT: Reminds me of the baby that starved due to a world-of-warcraft marathon.. Its deppressing.
The thing is that less people mean less of a demand for resources, period. All of the problems with social security, rising numbers of the elderly, and everything else are all man made issues that will be unpleasant to deal with, but that's the result of a sucky world where things have to get worse, before they get better.
For example, a big part of the arguement here (made by several people) revolves around the US social security system, and the obligation of the younger generation to support the older one. My point is that if society can't support that obligation, then you let it drop. This means that for the greater good of the species as a whole, you let the elderly fend for themselves at least for a few generations, as cruel as that might be.
The problem is that most people are thinking inside of a box, and in terms of "revolutions" and such which are exactly the reason why you'd need society as a whole to adapt as opposed to a few iron men trying to institute the policy.
I'll also be honest in saying that my own conclusions suck on a profound level for me, because I by definition am not a productive member of society anymore. I don't want to die or anything, but at the same time I'm disabled with brain damage and live off of social security. I just accept that even if I have no choice, I'm arguably part of the problem. It kind of sucks when intellectual realizations don't match your own personal needs.
Internationally, there are problems, and I've intentionally not been getting into that because it raises other questions, and would derail the entire conversation. To be blunt I've gone on about the needs for a world unity in the past, and that killing any number of people in order to achieve it would be worth it, while at the same time solving a lot of the overpopulation problem globally. I'm mostly just talking about domestic policy, in an intentionally limited way to try to avoid offending anyone without going into issues of time, place, and when to implement it.
The bottom line is however that no matter how people want to argue the point, more people = more resource consumption. Once the population reduces to the point where everyone can have a decent standard of living, and the planet can support it, we're pretty much set. All other arguements on social security, human nature to want more, and similar things are all able to be addressed, but again I haven't been focusing on it because it generally comes down to arguements of people saying "OMG, people will do this" and me pretty much saying "well, then we'll force them not to", followed by "but to do that you'd probably have to engage in mass murder!" and me going "so be it". Then everyone gets pissed off.
I've received a lot of similar messags, and this should answer just about all of them. Hopefully it won't lead to this going totally out of control.