Human population

[Apokryltaros]

Do realize that thinking that overpopulation of the human race is the most important threat that menaces the planet is naive.

Well, maybe you should bring your views to Kofi Annan. The U.N. sure considers it important. Here are some sites I tracked down; my search terms were "UN world population summit":
*snip(


Also, I'm going to have to check and review the thread but I believe eugenics and racial favouritism hasn't been brought up yet. Nobody's said "Race XYZ should be the ones with special breeding priveleges" yet. I certainly haven't; my comments have been and will remain colour-blind. When I say "Everyone stop at having one child each" I mean <i>everyone</i> — culture and ethnicity don't come into it.

Citing eugenics is tantamount to playing the Hitler card.

A) I stand by my opinion that overpopulation is NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM THAT THREATENS THE WORLD. In what way do too many babies in India pose a greater menace to the world than Iran deciding to produce nuclear missiles to reduce Israel into a glowing gehenna? I don't think that we should ignore the problem of overpopulation. I think that the problem of overpopulation is directly related to other, more, shall we say, crucial problems which aggravate it. I mean, what's the point of asking Third World families to have fewer children if the children they do have stand a greater risk of dying of ricketts at age 3 than we have of reaching age 50?
B) Do realize that child-quotas, particularly those that are socially and or governmently enforced, are a form of eugenics.
C) "Genetic Superiority" was brought up earlier in this thread. Do also realize that "genetic superiority," and its twin, "genetic inferiority" were two excuses that were used for the abuse of eugenics by US government officials. Furthermore, "genetic superiority" and inferiority are, for the most part, highly subjective. It was mentioned earlier in this thread, in that genetically desirable people be allowed to have many children, an idea often used by proponents of eugenics. In some cases, yes, the world would indeed be a better place if there was no more Osteogenesis Imperfecta, or no more Willi Praeder Syndrome. On the other hand, who's to say that thalacemia or sickle-cell anemia are superior conditions, in that carriers are more resistant to malaria? Exactly what makes a "genetically superior" person?
D) Do also realize that the school of Eugenics was around long before the Germanic people had differentiated from the Celts. The actual idea of eugenics is not just "genetic cleansing," as glorified by the Nazis, it's making the natural selection of humans a social concern, as though people were breeds of livestock to be improved. Plato suggested that reproduction be controlled by the government, albeit under the guise of a fake lottery so as to prevent people's feelings from being hurt. Please explain to me how saying that Plato had pet ideas of forcibly improving the human race is tantamount to me screaming "OMG UR A HITLERLUVR!!!!!"? After all, there were lots of other people BESIDES THE NAZIS who dabbled in, if not subscribed to eugenics throughout the centuries.

[Vuldari]

A) I stand by my opinion that overpopulation is NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM THAT THREATENS THE WORLD. In what way do too many babies in India pose a greater menace to the world than Iran deciding to produce nuclear missiles to reduce Israel into a glowing gehenna? I don't think that we should ignore the problem of overpopulation. I think that the problem of overpopulation is directly related to other, more, shall we say, crucial problems which aggravate it.

...and I stand by something that I said earlier...

(It's far easier to get 100 people to settle on a truce than 1,000,000)

Events of extreme civil unrest will only continue to get worse in dirrect corelation with the expansion of the human poulation. The more people you cram into the same space, the more varying opinions you get, and the more fights will break out. Fights will happen, regardless of wheter there are only 100 humans in a town, or 1,000,000, but when they happen, a brutal heated fight between 33 and 33 people (with the other 34 choosing not to take a side) may end with some people getting wounded or killed...while a fight between 350,000 and 350,000 people who have taken sides would be far more likely to end with entire towns being flattened and burned to the ground and heavy weaponry being used...resulting in the surroundling environment being destroyed as well.

Basically, I beleive that resolving the "MORE IMPORTANT" issues that you are speaking of will become more and more diffficult to resolve every year as the population grows untill it becomes truely impossible...assuming it isn't allready. (Which...as a matter of personal opinion...I believe it allready IS.) Therefore, I believe it is CRITICAL that the issue of Overpopulation be addressed ASAP in order for the successful resolution to those more immediate concerns to be made even possible.

So rather then discussing whether we're over-populated, I would try to find a solution to the potential problem that wouldn't turn the world into a living center of misery.

Well said WolvenOne...well said.

However, though many people have ideas on how to resolve the problem, even if someone out there has the perfect solution that you are speaking of, the implementation of Said Plan will be impossible untill the world at large can be convinced that Overpopulation does, in-fact, Exist.

...a fact that some people just can't seem to grasp...or don't want to.

Therefore, it IS a productive and useful thing for us to do to discuss the existance and impact of the Population issue, to build an argument on which to jump-start the movement to change the mindset of the world so that it can see that there is a problem here that needs immediate attention...thus making it possible to set a worldwide plan into motion to fix it.

[WolvenOne]

Well if that's the case then these debates should be done in Chinese and whatever language India uses. Europe and America's populations have mostly stabelized and all the REAL population growth in the world is coming from those two countries.

[Celestialwolf]

Finally, and most importantly, even if humans have overpopulated the planet, what the blasted heck do you suggest we do about it? People talk of sterilization and government instituted population controll but the very notion is barbaric and completly sickening when you consider how oppresive such a world would be. I for one would simply refuse to live in such a sad world.

Agreed.
People shouldn't just go and have as many kids as they can, however. We should be smart about that issue.

And, Vuldari, you're right. We shouldn't build on all the space available. We shouldn't destroy all the natural features of the areas near cities. Not all people see the values of these things, however. If we could all use the land more wisely none of this would be an issue. I'm glad that the gov. has set aside an abundance of national forests and parks such as Yellowstone. At least they see the value in that.

And that's all for me.

[WereDog]

bomb asia

but realy, i wouldnt mind if there was a law that enforced abortions for couples who already have one child.

its not like it would hurt anyone (except the rebels who got more children even tho they werent alllowed to do)

[outwarddoodles]

bomb asia

but realy, i wouldnt mind if there was a law that enforced abortions for couples who already have one child.

its not like it would hurt anyone (except the rebels who got more children even tho they werent alllowed to do)

People have the right to have as many babies as they want, there should not be a law agaisnt that. I belvie in China they tell people to have smaller families, please correct me if I'm wrong. Theres also a series of books I read about a soceity where they don't allow more than 2 children and it was about a kid who was a third child and had to stay hidden.

[Apokryltaros]

bomb asia

but realy, i wouldnt mind if there was a law that enforced abortions for couples who already have one child.

its not like it would hurt anyone (except the rebels who got more children even tho they werent alllowed to do)

You know, that's the kind of disgusting attitude that I'm deathly afraid of.
This is exactly why I find the suggestion of making population controls to be an abominable thought, because, sooner or later, you'll get some bozo who suggests that we kill off all of whomever current trends deem "undesirable," whether it's Asians, Jews, or even white-trash supermodels.
And the sad thing is, I'm never sure if they're kidding or not. I mean, if they are kidding, I think they should be thrown into a dungeon and be fed pigeon dung, and if they're not, they should be the ones forcibly sterilized.

Do realize that one of the main reasons why people in Asia often have three or more children is because the average child in rural Asia is unlikely to survive to age 5.
Do you honestly think that these people are going to listen to some arrogant strangers from the other side of the world preaching about how we're all filling up the world with babies, and that the only way to save this miserable mudball is to never have children?
Do also realize that government officials in Europe and the US subscribed to and abusing eugenic ideals well over a hundred years before Hitler and his croneys were born.
In fact, the US continued to sureptiously sterilized "undesirable people" well into the 70's.

People have the right to have as many babies as they want, there should not be a law agaisnt that. I believe in China they tell people to have smaller families, please correct me if I'm wrong. Theres also a series of books I read about a soceity where they don't allow more than 2 children and it was about a kid who was a third child and had to stay hidden.

It used to be government policy in Communist China to enforce a 1-child per family quota. Those families with more than 1 child were saddled with what was effectively an "extra child tax." Now, though, this quota has been eased, given as how it lead to some families alternatively killing, abandoning, or selling their daughters.
That, and officials ultimately realized that a country full of nothing but sons on Saturday night is hell.

[Kzinistzerg]

Yeah... The main reason is as Apokryltaros stated, thy need that many kids- most won't survive. it's when they carry it over into places where they survive that it a problem- but even then, it itn't much of one, as they merge into the culture and lower their birth rate.

like communism, forced birth controll is a wonderful idea... ON PAPER. You actually need a change in ppl before anythign like that would work the way it was supposed to- but even then, it's a precarious situation.

the best solution for birth controll (voulinatry) is some aort of cheap, easy-to-use sort that would last a given amount of time ( this little crystal, when inserted near your bloodstream, will emit non-harmful chemicals that prevent conception for one year. go have fun!) (of course, we don't have that, now do we... )

[Apokryltaros]

A few years ago, India started giving tax incentives to those men who volunteered for a program of (temporary) sterilization.
I dunno if it caught on.

[Vuldari]

First off...I would like to appologise to LazyWolf for dirrecting an unfair portion of my anger on him and for for calling him "Dense". I am not one to normally call people names, and I feel really bad about it.

Sorry dude...



Now...I would just like to make a simple point.
Logically, based on what has allready been discussed, I think it can be assumed that there is a finite amount of land that can be allocated for the purposes of supporting the human race without destroying the natural Ecosystems of the world, (The ones we have not allready destroyed, that is.), and there is an undefinable, yet undeniably present threshold of how many humans can be crammed into the same space (regardless of the abundance of resources available to all of them) beyond which Peace and Happiness becomes nearly impossible and life becomes a living nightmare.

Now...ignoring for a moment the fact that convincing the people of the world to put a cap on our population will be unbelieavably difficult...can we at least all agree that, (regardless of whether you beleive we have reached that point now or won't reach it for 100,000 years), that the Earth does, in fact, have a MAXIMUM practical capacity for Human life? (Without destroying The life of the other creatures of the world and taking everything for our own purposes)

If we can agree on that, then I think we can also agree that at some point, someday, somehow, the unrestricted population growth of out species will either need to be halted or we will reach an impassable natural barrier. In other words...things CAN NOT continue as they are. Something has to change. ...eventually.

Can we at least all agree on that?

If so, then I would like to make a suggestion by posing another question.
If we allready know that the average condition (and perhaps more relevantly, "QUALITY") of life will generall decrease for everyone as we expand our numbers. (Regardless of whether we cram more people into existing cities by rebuilding them taller and more space efficient...leading to gradually increasing claustophobic discomfort for all...or continue to spread into the land we previously agreed not to touch, for the "needs of the many"...leading to the accelerated collapse of all natural habitats on earth.), then why wait untill it gets that bad before doing something about it? If we can stop that future from ever happening, isn't it worthwhile to try?


Yes...I know how impossible the idea of worldwide population balancing appears to be, and NO...I don't have any brilliant ideas on how to make it work. However, regarless of the intense difficulty involved, it is clear to me that change is NECESSARY for the good of the future of the entire planet. There should not even be a question about whether or not anything needs to be done. The only question that should be asked is, "how will we do it?"

We can not just give up and say it is impossible, or choose to ignore the cosequences of what we do upon the generations of life that will come after us. That would not only be irrisponsible...it would be Evil. It is Evil for us to forsake the future because we know better.

Something MUST be done.

But what can we do?...you may ask. We can not convince everyone on the planet to do what we say. Maybe not...but there is somthing we CAN do.

Open you mind and be aware. See the problem and acknowlage that it exists. Learn yourself what each individual must do to make a brighter future possible and stand by those ideals for the rest of your life. Stand by the ideals of choosing your actions well today for the betterment of the tommorows that will come long after you have gone from this world, and share your wisdom with those you meet along the way. We can not make everyone do what we know is right if they do not know it or beleive it themselves, but we can see to it that the generations that come after us are wiser than we are...so they will grow up knowing what needs to be done and be wise enough to do what needs to be done themselves, without the need of gomvenment interferance. We can not convince everyone, but we can teach many, and the more our wisdom speads, the greater chance at a brighter future our decendants will have.

...just say to yourself that there IS a problem...admit and acknowlage that it does in fact exist... but also be confident in knowning that it is not too late to fix it. Just lead by example and live by the ideals you know could save the world, and in doing just that, without trying to make Anyone else do anyting at all, you will be doing your part in helping to save the world.

[WolvenOne]

Depends, if China and India keep reproducing at thier current rate with no end in sight, then yes, something would need to be done. However if thier population growth suddenly changes to match America and Europe, problem solved.

Experts say "at this rate there'll be a trillion people," soon, however they're assuming things will remain consistent, without change, and in this world the only that is consistent IS change.

[Apokryltaros]

Do also realize that at the moment, with current agricultural methods, we are capable of feeding up to 9 billion people.

[outwarddoodles]

Do also realize that at the moment, with current agricultural methods, we are capable of feeding up to 9 billion people.

I really don't know how much people we can feed currently, but this is why I dislike lands used for gorwing tobacco. Not only is smoking stupid, but that land could be used for something actually useful and edible. I'm imaging if the world keeps growing people with really big yards may be forced to grow food on it, or even taking away more wilderness, maybe even posibly protected lands, for farming. Though the world is capable of being fed, but isn't, when we over populate to much...thats when hell breaks loose!

[Figarou]

Do also realize that at the moment, with current agricultural methods, we are capable of feeding up to 9 billion people.

probably.

Now imagine if that same # had seconds. Will it still be enough?

[Apokryltaros]

Do also realize that at the moment, with current agricultural methods, we are capable of feeding up to 9 billion people.

probably.

Now imagine if that same # had seconds. Will it still be enough?

Yes.
The problem as I see it, is that it isn't because 3 billion people have second helpings, it's that a billion or so, have seconds, another billion have seconds, but decide to throw it away because they didn't realize that they'd get full so quick, a couple hundred thousand people in administration put red tape on lots of food that's so long, that, by the time the food gets to the people who need it, the expiration date has already expired, and another couple hundred people who, on the misbegotten behalf of the people they're supposed to represent say, "We don't need no stinking charity."
In other words, due to bureaucratic mismanagement, general wastefulness, and unyielding pride, much of the world's food goes to waste.
That, and my heart breaks everytime I see people throw their food they didn't finish into the trash.

[WolvenOne]

I should note that right now we're not fully utilizing the land we have when it comes to growing crops, mainly because we're choosing methods that're easier then then methods that produce more crops in the same amount of space.

If we switched to methods that produced greater yields, we could probably feed well over 9 billion. Not that I really would want to. With so much of the population growth localized to one part of the world, that one part of the world would become really unpleasent by the time we reached 9 mil.

*The world as a whole may or may not be overpopulated, but there certainly is certain localized portions of it that already are.*

[Apokryltaros]

I should note that right now we're not fully utilizing the land we have when it comes to growing crops, mainly because we're choosing methods that're easier then then methods that produce more crops in the same amount of space.

If we switched to methods that produced greater yields, we could probably feed well over 9 billion. Not that I really would want to. With so much of the population growth localized to one part of the world, that one part of the world would become really unpleasent by the time we reached 9 mil.

*The world as a whole may or may not be overpopulated, but there certainly is certain localized portions of it that already are.*

Thank you, government subsidies for farmers.

[Renorei]

Hmmm...it appears my comments about eugenics have raised some hackles. Let me clarify:

-I am not talking about the behavior of Germany or Hitler
-I am not talking about sterilizing the undesirable

All I was referring to was rewarding the genetically superior for having kids, and rewarding the genetically inferior for not having kids. I didn't say I wanted to force anything on anybody.

Also, has anyone see the movie Gattaca? Something sorta like that would be kinda cool (finish reading this before you reply.). I'm not saying that I'm in favor of creating an upper and lower class, genetically. Basically what happened in Gattaca was that several eggs would be harvested from the mother and (I think) lots of sperm harvested from the male. Then the best ones were picked, and allowed to join and create an embryo, thus resulting in the best possible combination of the two parents. Just so you know, I really don't think the segregation that resulted between the valids and invalids would actually happen, escpecially not after only one generation.

What I would do with this technology is make it either cheap or free to everybody, that way the poor people don't become inferior over time. Gradually, the whole human race (at least in developed countries) would get better.

[outwarddoodles]

I didn't see your other posts untill now, and I'm sorry but the instant I read that the thing in my head was. 'Okay, thats just [spoiler]f***[/spoiler] up.'

It doesn't matter if my genes are better or not, I god damn have the right to get screwed and rear a baby. I did not have any thing to do with my genes, no one does. We humans don't go through natural selection as much as we did, and sometimes I joke about that, but really. If someone wants a child let them have a child, taxing people for something they can not control and something that is natural is plain [spoiler]bullshit[/spoiler].

It would be much to hard, and much too stupid a** in the way that would be done, to make humans geneticaly more superior dramicly. It takes a long time for animals with heavy natural selection to evolve, you can't do that for humans. Besides, we keep growing in intelligence, we can just cure desieses.

I'm sorry for for the crude words and behavoir, I never snap at people in debates, its not a good way to hold a conservation with anyone. So I'll be the first one to say I am the one being mean here, not you. Yet truly, despite an over population problems, thats just not happening.

[WolvenOne]

Yeah, the problem with that is that people are always going to want to do things "the natural way," just because it's more enjoyable. Oh yeah sure there's birth controll, but not everybody will use it AND birthcontroll isn't 100% effective. Heck, you can have your tubes tied and STILL get pregnent, and no don't laugh, it does happen.

Think of it this way.

If a method is 99% effective, that means that one out of every 100 people who use it once will likely have a child. (actually it's more like two or threehundred but I'm trying to make a point.) Now, if a method is 99.9% effective, that still means that 1 out of every thousand or so people who use this method WILL experience failure and likely end up with a kid.

That may not seem like a lot, but believe me, it'll add up and a lower-class WOULD be the result, at least in the short-term.

Now this technalogy would be fine if there were certain.... limits put in place to prevent abuse. For example, if you passed a law preventing people from using this technalogy to create niegh hyper-intelligent children, then it couldn't be used in a Gattaca style fashion. At best it could be used to reduce or eliminate certain birth defects from the genetic pool, and even that would take time.

[Renorei]

I didn't see your other posts untill now, and I'm sorry but the instant I read that the thing in my head was. 'Okay, thats just [spoiler]f***[/spoiler] up.'

It doesn't matter if my genes are better or not, I god damn have the right to get screwed and rear a baby. I did not have any thing to do with my genes, no one does. We humans don't go through natural selection as much as we did, and sometimes I joke about that, but really. If someone wants a child let them have a child, taxing people for something they can not control and something that is natural is plain [spoiler]bullshit[/spoiler].

It would be much to hard, and much too stupid a** in the way that would be done, to make humans geneticaly more superior dramicly. It takes a long time for animals with heavy natural selection to evolve, you can't do that for humans. Besides, we keep growing in intelligence, we can just cure desieses.

I'm sorry for for the crude words and behavoir, I never snap at people in debates, its not a good way to hold a conservation with anyone. So I'll be the first one to say I am the one being mean here, not you. Yet truly, despite an over population problems, thats just not happening.

um...I'm not questioning anyone's right to do anything. Everyone has the right to have babies. And (at least in my most recent post, which most accurately reflects my views) I don't think the genetically inferior should be punished for having kids. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

As far as the Gattaca-style way of improving humanity, yeah it would be pretty hard. But I, for one, am always in favor of improvement.

My main reasons for feeling this way is because what with medicine improving everyday, more people that normally would have died naturally are now living and breeding, weakening the human race. It seems as though we are getting stronger, because we are getting better nutrition, but I'm pretty sure that over time (genetically) we have become, or are at least becoming, a weaker race. Yet we most definitely are becoming more intelligent. So basically we are getting physically weaker and mentally stronger. I'm all in favor of mental improvement...but I don't want us to end up being some race of weak, feeble little brainiacs. I want us to improve physically and mentally, and I think some form of eugenics could definitely help with that.

My vision of the future (the way everything is going now) is that physical strength is rapidly becoming less important, as fewer jobs require it and we lead sedentary lifestyles (most of us, anyway). Physical activity is now done out of recreational desires, not necessity. As such, no natural selection will occur in favor of physical ability, and we will eventually become a race of little weenie-people with no upper body strength and huge brains, who sit inside all day and hardly move. I never want that to happen, but I think one day it could. So that's why I'm in favor of using methods to continually improve us physically and mentally.

I'd like to repeat...I'm NOT questioning anyone's rights here. I just think the issue of human genetic deterioration is an important one, and one that should be addressed.

[outwarddoodles]

And (at least in my most recent post, which most accurately reflects my views) I don't think the genetically inferior should be punished for having kids. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

No, but I still think rewarding some for having kids and some for not having kids stupid:

All I was referring to was rewarding the genetically superior for having kids, and rewarding the genetically inferior for not having kids. I didn't say I wanted to force anything on anybody.

Anyway that would be much to hard to do. People don't mate out of being better in genetics, but because they love them. It's not going to happen quickly, people are probaly going to get pissed with all that. And would be too hard to coordinate.

The are humans, not llamas or dogs. Llamas and Alpacas are very similair, just Llamas were bred for work while Alpacas were bred for wool. Humans had bred them just like that, we can't breed a human like that. We can't choose two strong healthy people and say 'lets breed them!'. Plus that would end up with two different type of people, the 'inferior' and the 'superior' which was created by breeding humans on just their genes. Just like the Llama and Alpaca thing, both would then probally go two seperate ways.

As I've said, I just don't see it at all happening.

And by the way, thanks for keeping a cool head.

[WolvenOne]

Note: Superior Genetics do NOT prevent people from becoming "wimpy girly men." That's the arena of nurture, NOT nature. Nature can certainly help but if people don't get up an excercise then all the good genes in the world would fail to help them.

[Set]

For some reason this topic now reminds me of stories I've heard about Faeries. Some of the tales in which they kidnapped people suggested they wanted to strengthen their weakening bloodlines and that's the reason the Fae snatched travelers off of the roads. They were so desperate they had to do it. It would be an interesting thing then if we had to start kidnapping aliens to strengthen our own race.

[Scott Gardener]

First, we need to educate the world and raise collective human intelligence. Then, more people will be aware of the problem at hand, and more will be in a position to participate in its resolution. As long as we have people living in dire poverty and starvation, trying to talk to such people about "controlling population" is, as Apokryltaros pointed out, insult to injury.

But, education is about more than just technology and raising living standards. One has to bring an educated mind-set with it. Otherwise, you get exactly what's happened. The cultural conditionings to "go forth and multiply" are an adaptive survival method. The people in rural contexts who didn't have those cultural directives tended to die out. (There aren't exactly very many Shakers these days.) The population spikes happen when an underdeveloped culture turns into a developed one, but takes with it the motivations of "God said we have to reproduce as much as possible," that are rendered logically obsolete but still ingrained on a core cultural level.

We have to convince women in developing countries that they have equality--that they're more than just property of men. And, we have to enforce that equality, because it's very hard to become equal in a setting where oppression is the norm, no matter how much self esteem you yourself have.

We have to convince people to question whether "God said to have as many kids as possible" is just as relevant in a global context, where the planet is only so big. They don't all have to change their religions. But, some should. Free will and choice should be available, and that takes knowledge of alternatives. To make a choice, you have to realize you have one.