The Over Population Problem

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Liebling, Feb 10, 2009.

  1. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    I am still on the "limit population" side, I just understand the obstacles. If you reread all my posts in this thread, I wasn't advocating either, just describing the situation as it is.

    Setting up limits can only work on the national level because one country has no right to intervene in other's internal politics. Since overpopulation is not a problem in the West, it is the 3rd world countries (yes, India too) where something has to be done, or well, they will just starve, what I don't really care about because I simply can not care or bear the suffering of everyone.

    There will always be poverty, hunger and suffering no matter what we do.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    Well Liebling, a lot of the abuse Women/girls suffer in China is as a result of trying to control it's population.

    The under 15 years sex ration: 1.134 male(s)/female (2007). Figure that one out. Many chinese when put to the limit of one child...are picking boys, one way or another.

    Life constrained by authority, has historically turned out very bad for the authority...eventually.

    Life will find it's own natural limit. It might be horrible, it might be worse in your opinion to some kind of Utopian crowd control (Orwell's 1984 from my point of view).

    Trying to control the conditions for Life, will bite mankind in the ass as it has in the past.

    Who knows really? The conditions for a critical breakthrough in the next phase of the grand "Human" adventure may actually require a threshold of 10 Billion people, living in a relatively free liberal way. I feel people like you are saying "No" the next, what comes after....we want to live in the past, indeed you sounds very much like religious dogma to me.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    Good points though. I have noticed a change in your opinion somewhat?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    As long as a case is not obvious, I can argue for both sides pretty persuasively.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    One statistics was scary, I remember I did the same calculation back then. The 200K people lost at the tsunami was made up in one day. So for humankind 100K here or there doesn't even count.
     
  8. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Well this here is pretty much the gist of the thread. It IS scary.
     
  9. Liebling Doesn't Need to be Spoonfed. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,532
    Actually, it was made up in less than a day. By the time the news reached us here in the west, we had already made up for it in births.

    There has to be something though, that we can do as responsible humans to try and reduce it. I don't want it to be famine or plague, I would rather it be done with the least amount of lives lost and the least amount of suffering.

    I am speaking of social and environmental responsibility. I know that a lot of people won't accept this because of religious dogma, but at least if a large group starts to wards this goal, maybe people will begin to understand and follow along. And I am not looking for a fix tomorrow, but to make people suffer less a hundred or a thousand years from now. Maybe that number is two children per couple, I can't answer that for sure. I personally closed the barn doors after two because I didn't want to over-populate and add to the problem. I've always lived under the zero population growth theory, but I am now looking deeper and thinking that possibly reduction is a better option for mankind as a whole. Not killing people alive now, mind you, but preventing too many births.
     
  10. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    Have you thought, perhaps, that as you made that decision for yourself, as many in the west rarely go past two children, so too will the east as it currently rises itself out of a horrible age of oppression? (and you speak of futher oppression no matte how you disguise the term)

    Many people in the west don't even have two children. This all seems to come from an understanding that a life's worth does not HAVE to come from adding to the gene pool (some don't even add to it at all -voluntarily). I'm sure it will catch on as liberties find their way more and more to the east.

    I do believe we have a perfect case study for who your solution is not a good one, with what has occurred in China the past 30 years.
     
  11. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    The reality is that in poor countries having an extra kid is pretty much cheaper than trying to prevent it. When you already have 6, another one doesn't make a difference.

    Again, the bottomline is there WILL be suffering. Just wait until Pronatalist shows up and we have to suffer through his mini-novels.
     
  12. visceral_instinct Monkey see, monkey denigrate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,913
    I agree with you Enmos.

    Personally I think more people should adopt rather than creating more humans.

    If I have kids I will definitely adopt rather than having my own. I've always liked that idea. There are so many out there who need a home.
     
  13. visceral_instinct Monkey see, monkey denigrate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,913
    I know...I love taking him to pieces, but then he just refuses to answer posts.
     
  14. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I would proclaim Pronatalist the anti-Christ, but then.. I'm not religious

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Liebling Doesn't Need to be Spoonfed. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,532
    I'm not so sure that ratio is a bad thing. There are more manual labor workers that are male, and without family to support they can spend more into the economy and support the tax system. There will not be a need to procreate for many men, and that could also add to a word hard, play hard diametric that also benefits the economy and environment.

    Infanticide is an awful thing, and I know that in the early days of the policy it happened far too often and is indeed an argument against the policy. That has definitely been put aside as a regular practice and is punishable by law in China. It's steeply declined in the last 10 years. We can learn from their mistakes and make a plan that would not include such problems as well, if everyone starts thinking more logically about the whole problem.

    The trouble is getting people to get to that point through suggestion and not through force. I'd rather not be oppressive, as I am usually a very liberal, even libertarian type of person... but the optimist in me wants to believe that humans can see what they are doing and somehow take responsibility for the way they treat the world as a whole and come to a better decision based on all the facts and figures.

    In all honesty, I wanted four or five kids when I started out but the more I looked at the world and the more I saw suffering, I started to really consider the ramifications. Yes, I am a fairly well off, hard working individual who could support three more children comfortably. But someone helped convince me it wasn't a good idea because of all the things I've cited. I think with more education, and more enlightenment, many people could start to feel the same way.
     
  16. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    Well, there is another solution although that isn't pleasant either. Killing of the elderly. We could come up with an agelimit and when you reach that, your time has come. That has other advantages too, but I am not advocating it....
     
  17. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    The Time Machine ?
     
  18. Liebling Doesn't Need to be Spoonfed. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,532
    I don't like the idea of selective euthanasia. But only because my grandmother was 99 when she passed, and still was smart as a tack and taught me so much more in the last 10 years of her life than any one single person has taught me in a lifetime. Many elderly people are world wise, and their stories are important if you just stop to listen to them. They have seen the world in different times and can offer insights as to what went wrong, and how things really were that you just can't get from history books.

    I do however, feel that people who have terminal illnesses and are of sound mental capacity can make a decision to end their life with dignity. I also feel that people with advanced directives should not be kept alive by a church or church run government at all, and should likewise be allowed to pass according to their wishes.
     
  19. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Remember the movie Logans Run? :shrug:
     
  20. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    How about when one wants to committ suicide on their own because they are in bad health and do not want to continue being a burden to society as well as themselves any longer?? :shrug:
     
  21. laladopi time for change. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,193
    Interesting...
     
  22. Liebling Doesn't Need to be Spoonfed. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,532
    I think that if they are of sound mind, they should be able to make that decision with dignity and pride. And I think that's perfectly fine.
     
  23. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    In Oregon it is legal today to do so.
     

Share This Page