Over-population...

D

DarkEyedBeauty

Pirate.
Registered Senior Member
I've been thinking about this a lot lately and I'm a little mad about over-population!

...Look at the amount of jobs available vs. the amount of unemployed people. There just aren't enough jobs. The cities are crowded, the small towns are becoming urbanized. Small countries are breaking out in to plague-scale diseases. We're having wars. This is all the symptoms of over-population. Here's my suggestions...

1) After a girl begins menstruating she should be put on birth control. No parent wants their little girl pregnant, so it wouldn't really be any violation. Then sex wouldn't be quite as huge a deal (I know that this might create a problem with younger sexual encounters and STDS but this is only a cure for over-population.). We could dispute civil rights, but I think everyone could be talked into considering the great effects it would have.

2) If someone wishes to have a child he/she would have to take a test. It would come in any language. They only way it would discriminate racially would be if a race is less intelligent than another, in which case the human race would be advancing or that race would need to study up. The questions on the test would have nothing to do with morals...they are disputable...but they would rather be on living condition, income, age, relationship with partner.

3) People would only be allowed to have 2 children. What do they really need more than that for? You could say for family income, but with the lessening population there would be more jobs available, better ones, and people would be in demand, which means wages would be higher. If someone had twins or multiples, fine...accident. But nobody really would have any need for more children than 2.

4) If someone went off the pill or had a child without consent they will go to jail, this is a serious issue. Their child will be given to a couple who qualifies but cannot have children. This will make everyone happy.

This view may sound extreme, but the situation is extreme at this point in time. SARS, AIDS, whatever wars are going on or in the making....we need to act...and the main cause of these diseases and world tragedies is over-population, it affects everything.
 
Your restrictions sound like something out of a future sci-fi novel right now, but I can definitely see something like that happening. In China I don't think there are any actual laws prohibitting a couple from having more than two children, but I do think that those who do are looked down upon and don't have as many oppurtunities for job advancement. That's just one step in the direction of greater restrictions.
 
Originally posted by DarkEyedBeauty

...Look at the amount of jobs available vs. the amount of unemployed people. There just aren't enough jobs. The cities are crowded, the small towns are becoming urbanized. Small countries are breaking out in to plague-scale diseases. We're having wars. This is all the symptoms of over-population. Here's my suggestions...
Click to expand...

you are assuming unempoyed people are parasites and employment is the holy grail to happiness and fulfilment.

why don't you just execute everybody without a job? Isn't that much simpler than all those other rules you mention
 
Unemployment is not driven by population size. Humans work for humans.. More humans, more work. Increased human populations also contribute to a more enriched and varied workforce. To cater to a minority demand in a small population is uneconomical, but in larger populations it become profitable

why don't you just execute everybody without a job?
Click to expand...
Once you do that all the people who are employed to help the unemployed will lose their jobs. Then once there all eliminated the executioners will lose their jobs and will have to kill them selves. Then because there is so many less people some business will no longer be profitable. So on and so one..
I know your not serious just making a point.

We're having wars.
Click to expand...
We will have wars no matter how many humans there are.
Small countries are breaking out in to plague-scale diseases.
Click to expand...
Not something new in human history. Increased human populations mean more resources to fight the “plague”. Also I don’t know of any plague-scale diseases since the 1918 pandemic. Once again plague or widespread disease is spread via trade, commerce and adventure. If no one traveled outside there home states we would never see a pandemic again.

SARS is just a media hype syndrome. It kills about 3-4% of people infected. Ebola virus kills 50% and is highly contagious yet it has not spread around the world.

AIDS is spread in uneducated populations via ignorance; population density has nothing to do with it. In Australia we have very low AIDS related deaths.

In my country population decline is a serious issue. We may soon have generous government rebates just by having children. It is a problem that is affecting most of the western world. Life has become so easy in our high density cities and towns that having children provide us with no real benefits (apart from love and family)

I do agree that so called third world counties do have problems. Their problems are not due to population it is due to culture.

Recent studies (I’ll have to get the ref latter) show that around 2050 human populations will start to decline.

I argue that population decline is the worst thing that could happen to humanity and we must do everything in our power to continue to increase population.

We owe it to mother earth to live on. We owe it to mother nature to leave earth behind and spread beyond her embrace and take the universe that has been given to us. To go into decline is to say we have had enough and we should just sit back and wait for our death.
 
but the problem is with what you have said, is that in a supposed free world those laws will infringe our civil liberties.

you have to remember what america is built on. your theories might be logical, but you would not be able to like put them though your congress.

so america has to get around what it is supposed to be based on and it will have to solve these problems in other ways, like my thread on the hiv virus.

it just would have been far more simply for the world if germany had won the war and the supposed freedoms of individuals were infringed on. instead countries like england and america won the war and now they have to find different ways to deal with this problem, without the public knowing they are being infringed.

but one thing that makes me laugh is that individuals would have a case for there civil liberties if the government upheld the things you say, but when the government infringes the peoples rights in other ways we don't have any rights at all, to ask about why our lifes are being infringed.
 
4) If someone went off the pill or had a child without consent they will go to jail, this is a serious issue. Their child will be given to a couple who qualifies but cannot have children. This will make everyone happy.
Click to expand...


You are joking right?...i mean seriously....your logic cannot be this innane. How will that possibly make anyone happy. I can see that you haven't had any childern yet because no mother would ever even consider such a regulation to be forced upon society of any intelligence or race.


BTW...no race is smarter than the other. Every race has it's "dolts" and "it's do wonders". Plus those options you have posted there are just too strict to be taken seriously though sadly enough i could see some of them being employed in the future. Instead of treating the problem to bring relief why not cure it. Teach people about birth control and child bearing burdens, people in thrid world countries need to know this, they need to get over their ignorance.

You cannot make the world better through restrictions because as you can see they only condone opposite behavior but rather try to make itr better through knowledge....*sigh* sadly enough that doesn't seem to be working either.
 
Well no, I'm not entirely serious. The reason that I even throw these suggestions out there is because they are in my head and I hasn't been working in our country to teach people children about safe sex and parenthood. I, personally, have no intention of having children. So I would have no problem enforcing these rules. As far as I'm concerned I could have a hysterectomy tomorrow and I'd be fine. But the population does need to be controlled, and thus far nothing has worked. I hope it never comes to this. But I don't want to die in a world packed with people/full of diseases.
 
DarkEyedBeauty (are you really?) - I agree with your aims but not your methods. Anyone who can come up with an acceptable way of reducing human population would be doing the world a service.

Blindman - The only reasons declining populations cause problems are economic ones. Population growth generates economic growth, and of course we must have that year on year on year on year. The idea that we should always try to increase our population is absurd unless you want to live in a mean world that just has humans and human artefacts in it, (as so many city-dwellers already have to).
 
Originally posted by DarkEyedBeauty
I, personally, have no intention of having children. So I would have no problem enforcing these
Click to expand...



WOW, aren't you the greatest human being ever. I would like to ask you...Do you read what you put down?:rolleyes:


And yes i agree that sex education isn't working in school because it isn't informative at all. The reason are the parents; even if a school did decide to go beyond the norms and stretch it's arm into more conterversial matters regarding sexual education the parents would be at a up roar in PTA meetings. So we cannot balme the schools. It's a parents job to monitor your kids and teach them about the pros and cons of sex.

The problem of over population isn't the worlds problem it is infact a problem of a choice few countries. India and China are the two leaders in producing offspring. Europe is rather under populated. These countires need to focus on educating their population on the dangers of over copulating. I believe China already takes drastic steps in order to control their population as for India; well it has only begun doing so and i might add the results are sorely disappointing.
 
darkeyedbeauty, you are a blind-eyed-thinks-he's-beauty

the world is overpopulated, but a restriction on life is stupid. Education is the influence that would be humanitarian, rules about sending people to jail for having kids and forcing your stupid single-minded ideas will not only never happen, but makes you come off as a complete ignoramous. You rank people by their employment status, and you think by being overly harsh and concrete without bending is the only way to solve the problem. This is what dictators do. You really need to quit being so closed minded and open your eyes for once.
 
Yes I agree that the worlds population is getting out of control. Blindman said that the best thing for the world would be increase in population. Its true that more people means more need, means more jobs to meet that need. But why the hell do we need more need? To make more jobs?

Now noone usually thinks about whether more people would be employed with more population or with less. And actually thinking about it myself - I don't know.

I think about it this way: the less people we have, the more resources there is per person. And though people might say that material wealth doesn't make people happy, it does. People wouldn't have to worry as much about finding jobs, keeping jobs, getting things - and they can focus on the finer things in life, instead of just surviving.

I think some better methods for this would be:

1. give people tax breaks for having 1 or 2 children, but give them tax increases for having more children than that. Then people can have their children, but they pay the community for what they take from it.

2. Get childrens tubes tied at birth. This way, people can't HAVE accidental pregnacies, and people would have to go to more trouble to have children. They would go to a doctor and have a small procedure. The reporductive material could also be tested for gross defects so that we don't have any retarded or misformed children.
 
Originally posted by Frencheneesz


2. Get childrens tubes tied at birth. This way, people can't HAVE accidental pregnacies, and people would have to go to more trouble to have children. They would go to a doctor and have a small procedure. The reporductive material could also be tested for gross defects so that we don't have any retarded or misformed children.
Click to expand...


OMG:rolleyes: ..Do you hear yourself or rather read yourself...you are doing the same thing darkeyedbeauty is doing; trying to enforce linear ideas to a situation that is anything but. You want to give newborns a historectomy as soon as they are born!!! i mean really. Besides being dangerous, it is mundane and just a deluded idea. You are basically taking away a childs huge right with out it's consent and input...geez the thing can't even think of it self at that point. I think you meant that get parents tubes tied after having a childerns birth. Either way it is a choice you can't make for people but rather educate them on the dangers of overpopulation.
 
What do we hold more important? "Civil liberties"/traditional beliefs or the longevity of our species?
You can't have both.
Surprisingly the majority would pick the former and thats why humans aren't going to reach any milestones in the evolutionary sense.
Someone mentioned congress wouldn't accept any drastic changes and they are right, thats why congress needs to be overthrown. The whole system the free world works on would have to be completely revamped for the problem of over-population to ever be remedied.
This is not going to happen, so humans are going down before their first birthday.

Somewhere around the year 598 000AD would have been our first birthday as a species, and would have been a requirement for not being considered the least successful species in history.
 
"Besides being dangerous"

How dangerous is it?

"it is mundane and just a deluded idea."

Uhh.. do you know what mundane means?

"You are basically taking away a childs huge right with out it's consent and input"

Really now. Children don't have rights. Children can be searched without probable cause in school. Children get their penises chiseled without their consent. Children have to follow adults orders. Children are powerless.

"I think you meant that get parents tubes tied after having a childerns birth."

I assure you, I did not.

"Either way it is a choice you can't make for people but rather educate them on the dangers of overpopulation."

In any case, I think the tax idea would help just as much or more. We get money instead of losing it from all those mandatory hystorectomies the governement would have to fund.

But anyways, what if we made it mandatory that every birth hospital would have their doctors tell the parents about giving their child a historectomy and that they will do it from government money. Does THAT take away their rights?
 
Ohh you make me so angry… Fascist evil.

When in Rome.. I chose to sterilize all people that think humans don’t have a right to exploit nature.

I think that people who think there is finite resources on this Earth are naïve. Life is a chemical reaction.. All life is reliant on natural energy sources most of which come from our sun.

Kill the ant before killing a human.(not that I advocate that).

Did you know that if you put all the ants in the world in a pile and weighed them and then weighed all the humans they would be about the same. So we kill all the ants. Thus the finite resources that you population fear mongers say is so critical will stretch just that little further.

Most of you have been sold the idea of population danger.. You put human life second to the environment. It sounds like the start of another fascist movement. How would you deal with counties that don’t want to stop growth? The idea of mandatory sterilization is just another name for genocide.

Most of you live comfortable lives in wealthy counties with high quality social services. For most of the world a child means hope.. A child creates a new source of income. A child protects ones future.

How about you all go out and live of the land.. Scratch the soil and find a meal, tell me what its like to be hungry most of the time. Tell me why I should not have a child or 5 or 6 so that we can be more productive.

I am not green and I don’t believe that we should keep the world wild.. The earth will become one great park with room for thousands of species. With population we will be forced to water the deserts, we will reclaim the sea. This is our world not natures…

I wish that the fascist belligerent losers who advocate population controls should be the first to be removed from our societies.

Put your money were your mouth is and volunteer to be sterilized.. Oh even better have you gut stapled so you don’t waist precious resources. I bet most of you are over weight, you greedy fat bastards.

A very angry Blindman.
 
Funny, I would consider you evil.
Or very misguided, no no evil is fairly accurate. When I see people with this "humans are superior to earth" attitude I consider them the equivalent of a rapist.
A rapist who feels he deserves the right to rape because he has the physical capability.
The planet's resources are most definately finite and I wish you lived long enough to feel the repurcussions of over population first hand.
It's not going to be pleasant.
 
Blindman-
I seriously can't tell if you are serious about this because I can't imagine anyone hinestly believing in the things you said.

Originally posted by Blindman
Most of you live comfortable lives in wealthy counties with high quality social services. For most of the world a child means hope.. A child creates a new source of income. A child protects ones future.
Click to expand...
A child means hope?
So that means 8 children means 8 times the hope?
Hope for what, specifically?

A new source of income?
You mean as in child labor?
Do you really think that the income brought into a household would outweigh the cost of a child?
If a family of 3 were hungry, a family of 4 would be HUNGRIER.
If you can't afford to feed your children, having MORE children is neglectful and basically abusive.

Originally posted by Blindman
How about you all go out and live of the land.. Scratch the soil and find a meal, tell me what its like to be hungry most of the time. Tell me why I should not have a child or 5 or 6 so that we can be more productive.
Click to expand...
More productive?
How?
I you are living off the land to support yourselves how would 4 or 5 more people help?
Similar to the above argument...
3 people can easliy gather/grow/hunt food for three people.
How would having more children make obtaining food easier?
More hands/more need.


Originally posted by Blindman
I am not green and I don’t believe that we should keep the world wild.. The earth will become one great park with room for thousands of species. With population we will be forced to water the deserts, we will reclaim the sea. This is our world not natures…
Click to expand...

That just makes me sad.
Let's cement the whole world.
Who needs nature?
You should really learn more about wide-scale ecology.
For someone that is a proponent ofr bringing more people into the world you certainly have a selfish short-sighted view.
Do you not care what the world is like for all these children you want to bring into it?


Originally posted by Blindman
I think that people who think there is finite resources on this Earth are naïve. Life is a chemical reaction.. All life is reliant on natural energy sources most of which come from our sun.
Click to expand...

It is not a question of the resources being finite.
It is a question of rate of consumption.
You have a pig that eats 5 pounds of food a day.
You have a 100 pound stockpile of food and a vegetable garden that generates 5 pounds of food a day.
With these restraints, can you support another pig?
Yes.
For a short period.
Eventually your stockpile will diminish, and you will have just enough food to support ONE pig.
Your garden is still generating food, but your pigs are eating it faster than it can be generated.
 
DrLou - I seem to be following you around agreeing with you. Blindman is well named and has clearly had the usual anthropomorphic indoctrination in the natural sciences. Unfortunately it is an increasingly common view in a human population that with each generation has less and less contact with the natural world.
 
Oh I'm not so sure his views are becoming more common, in fact I don't think there was such a thing as environmental awareness 50 years ago. Everyone used to agree that the planet was put there for people and they could do what they want to it and its other inhabitants.
 
Who says anyone has a right to anything? As I see it, we are all part of an unthinking nature that has no plan, no emotion, and no thought. So what we do is to make ourselves feel as good as possible for as much as possible.

By destroying what most people refer to as "nature", disregarding the fact that doing so would most likely destroy us as well, would lessen many peoples abilities to make themselves feel good. People like "nature", people use "nature", people are nature.

Blindmans says "neuter the genocidists!" because they are bad.
Blindman is a Zenocidist. Anyone know what that means? Lets neuter him.

"So we kill all the ants. Thus the finite resources that you population fear mongers say is so critical will stretch just that little further."

That has more impact than just freeing up resources.

"You put human life second to the environment."

No way man. Humans rule. But the environment is what sustains us. We are part of the environment, so if that goes, we go. Animals live on homeostatis.

"Tell me why I should not have a child or 5 or 6 so that we can be more productive. "

If you're hungry, all those screaming kids aren't going to help. Especially if the average life span is so small that you die before you can be supported by your kids for very long.

"Put your money were your mouth is and volunteer to be sterilized"

Obviously you missed the point. Everyone can still have kids and not overburden the population. People arent sterilized when they get a hysterectomy, it only hinders the process. You can still have it done, its just harder.

"I bet most of you are over weight, you greedy fat bastards."

Oh really? how much do YOU weigh, ass master? More people mean more people that need to eat, duh. If you have more people you have less food.

"I think that people who think there is finite resources on this Earth are naïve. "

If we have unlimited resources, then everything would be dirt cheap. Everybody would be rich, and there wouldn't be a problem. Even if we had unlimited resources, we can't get them fast enough. So even though they may be THERE, we can't get them all HERE. So in light of the industrial revolution, we can use machines to work for humans so we need less humans. Then when we have less humans, we have more weath to go around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top