Participating in a discussion is a great way to learn and contribute to ideas for superstructing. When you post a comment, try to provide information that others may not know, and avoid getting into arguments. Winning discussions are all about working together to get smarter.

Please login or register to post


    21st Century Ideas: We need population control

    A global population control is necessary to stop depleting our planet

    Started by: tdesigner Raves:7

    Subscribe » RSS

    As our population reaches new heights, we are reaching a point where our planet is not able to sustain the entire species. We need to act now to do two very important things: limit our current population growth, and start thinking on technology that allow mankind to lead a fully sustainable existence outside of Planet Earth

    While I can understand that sentiment that as global population reaches a plateau where current means of technologies can no longer sustain an ever-increasing population, I don\\\'t believe that population control is the answer. The evolution of new scientific ideas does not come from availability, but necessity. Especially in the free-market economy of the world, where the world is in need of a new technology the private sector will almost jump upon that situation to create a technology that is profitable and satiates that dilemna. But the development of technologies that is driven by the private sector has its obvious downfalls. Drug companies that focus on creating profitable treatments versus tangible cures. But here is a difference, the so-called shift to \\\"greener\\\" energy technologies. Here the public government shifts the private sector through tax breaks and incentives to shift to newer technologies. Instead of being driven by pure profitability, these new technologies are shifted towards a more altruistic goal. Global population control would have to be a worldwide co-ordinated effort to curb overgrowth in certain areas. This could work with the conjuction of technologies that would provide a balance, reduce the population growth while creating new technologies that would sustain it. With that I agree with you. But I don\\\'t believe that is the only answer to this situation. The potential of the planet has yet to be harvested because it is only limited by the ingenuity of scientists who can create new technologies to bring that potential to light. Before we start exporting our people and problems to other parts of the Solar system, we must address a viable solution to the increasing problems found in our own world.

    It\\\'s not that we cannot invent technology to meet the demands that our growing population creates, it\\\'s more that government and organisation becomes much harder in larger societies. Less people would mean that any changes that need to be implemented socially will happen much faster.

    I AGREE 100%. ..... however..... how do you wish to go about implementing this? I mean zero political parties even dare touching this issue. Replacement values are bad as is, with populations in europe, americas, russia, japan, china actually shrinking these days. People are depressed and in places with some residual wealth they stopped breeding. Only population growth is slave labour in the form of immigrants in yellow jumpsuits saying \\\"jessa master, no master\\\". Well of immigrants join those labour force programs, over here they get D medical, but that involves them getting sterilized for the duration of their stay. Try selling your ideas in Egypt or Saudi Arabia where they are still breeding like rabbits, especially with the nationalists and the fascists in power there everywhere. We used to be afraid of communists and islamists in the old days, these days it\\\'s all right wing arabs plotting to send their population explosion surplus to us, and thus spread Arab nationalist fascist state ideology. Try persuading those people we should cut down on breeding, then we\\\'ll talk.

    Breeding cuts down naturally as standards of living rise. This has been true for ages: look at the population growth numbers by country and you\\\'ll see that those with the highest standard of living have the lowest growth rates, many of them in the negative. In poorer countries the population growth is through the roof. And as countries develop, their population growth trends down. So if you want to see population growth go down, without killing people or forcing people to do things against their will, then you just build up their standard of living till they care more about ipods than procreation.

    There is no humane way to legislate population control. One must impart upon the individuals how important it is. But forcing their hand would be an injustice, even in times of crisis.

    We should be educating children from an early age about the positive value of being childfree as well as teaching them about contraception etc. It requires a real change in basic human values and I\\\'m not sure we have time enough to affect such a change planet wide.

    I have to agree with ARK, there\\\'s no humane way to institute population control. However, there are a number of inhumane ways that have proved to be remarkably effective, from mass sterilization, to birth control or libido decreasing drugs (like saltpeter) in foods, to efficient and ongoing executions. We should definitely explore the nicer options first, but we might want to hedge our bets. - Prophessor Bedlam, Threat Level: Tortilla Pants

    There is one measure which, whenever it's been implemented successfully, has shown to have a 100% success rate in reducing population, and that's to educate women.

    Australia, for example, has had a net negative fertility rate since the start of the century; it's only because of immigration that its population is increasing.

    We dont have to execute an inhumane solution. There just needs to be a law which restricts a family to two children. If the law is broken the family must undergo supervision by the government to make sure the children can be supported. If another child is born, the family must have an operation to become sterile. Further children would result in imprisonment of the parents. Even if the law was enacted in few regions i believe it would spread when others became too populated.

    Everyone here, bear in mind the following (A) applying population limits by means of authority, law and punishment is bad. However, (B) natural limitations, resource depletion, die-off, violence and environmental restrictions acting to restrict population growths is much much worse. The problem is, when thinking about this conundrum between choice A and choice B your genes scream silently into your reptilian brain : "if I breed, what does it matter, at least I try, and maybe my genes will make it - let other people stop breeding". - this is a severe, almost unsolvable problem. We do not have state mechanisms or global authority in place to address this problem. Our democracies are not equipped to sensibly regulate this. Can anyone see a way out other than arduous publicity campaigns?

    Oh - and btw here is a map showing birth rates around the world. http://www.globalgeografia.com/world/birth_rate.gif Now be a realistic for a change. How does anyone propose we go and make the dark green areas listen to and obey the light green areas? Be real.

    wow thats an eyeopener. but maybe africa does need some legal restrictions. it has worked in the past for the continent, specifically in Kenya. i dont see the reason for this countries rate considering the world as it is today.

    Again there's no humane way to legislate population control. You cannot tell people how many children to have.

    There is an effective means of controlling human populations that does not require draconian laws or deep social engineering strategies...it called disease. Its a natural cure for many man made ills. Give disease a chance.

    People in developing countries have more children because there is absolutely no system in place to ensure that they will be looked after in their old age. You want population control - it requires basic social supports in place to look after the aged.

    Interesting argument thorn - might the western democracies at one point decide that euthanasia is better 'for all of us" and spread a cocktail of engineered diseases...? Or have they already done so?

    Perhaps I missed something, but global famine and the ReDs pandemic should go a long way toward reducing our population.

    I'm pretty sure if you look at that map http://www.globalgeografia.com/world/birth_rate.gif....you also notice that the countries with the big population growth are also the countries with the least access to contraception.

    Tax babies! Who won't be able to pay. Uh oh, now what.

    Forgive this connection, but the discussion reminds me of the movie Idiocracy. Here's the wikipedia intro:A narrator explains that natural selection is indifferent to intelligence, so that in a society in which intelligence is systematically debased, stupid people easily out-breed the intelligent, creating, over the course of five centuries, an irremediably dysfunctional society. Demographic superiority favours those least likely to advance society.[1] Consequently, the children of the educated élites are drowned in a sea of sexually promiscuous, illiterate, alcoholic, proletarian peers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy




    Nominate For A Badge

    Badge:
    More detail on badges



    NOMINATE CANCEL