Why Does no Politician Address Overpopulation?

[Kaleredar]

What in the hell has convinced you that overpopulation in the United States is a problem?

Do you have a scrap of evidence to support this claim?

[Klingers]

Doesn't matter. Once you start introducing politics it's less "does this better humans" and more "haha, MY type of humans will prevail at all costs!". That's why it's so fraught with problems... because people can't help but sneak over to that last side.

That you immediately had a go-to that's political is a shining example of why it's a problem.

It's the most timely, contextually-relevant and large-scale intelligence test right now, that's all. But fair point I guess, maybe politics isn't the best place to be on it. Still a valid point though.

[Kaleredar]

Trump is the lesser of two evils. Anything to keep out Hillary Clinton.

If it comes down to the guy that espouses legal torture, putting people on watchlists based on their religion, and the targeting of innocent people for murder versus the "well she's had these scandal things that involve her" person, the first guy really sounds like the greater evil.

[Vanyali]

It's the most timely, contextually-relevant and large-scale intelligence test right now, that's all. But fair point I guess, maybe politics isn't the best place to be on it. Still a valid point though.

Theoretically, if we had humans having kids the way we do domesticated animals the human race could do a lot. In practice it ends up like communism: a nice ideal that's corrupted by whoever holds the power.

[aeuhe4yxzhds]

A lot of jobs eventually disappear because someone somewhere wants to earn more money with a better product. So jobs disappear, why would we need to increase our population? Its going to be harder and harder to create jobs.

Serious question, what is going to happen when every company wants self driving cars thanks to capitalism? Where would those cab driver and truck driver get a job? That is a lot of people that need a job.

[Klingers]

What in the hell has convinced you that overpopulation in the United States is a problem?

Do you have a scrap of evidence to support this claim?

It's not just the US. It's the entire world. Fresh water, arable land, physical space in built-up metropolitan areas, etc etc.

[Vanyali]

It's not just the US. It's the entire world. Fresh water, arable land, physical space in built-up metropolitan areas, etc etc.

We don't actually have an issue with those.

The issue is we're shit at managing those. And urban areas have a built in limit where you physically can't fit more people in a given area, but that doesn't mean that you can't expand the urban center either up or out.

[Khaza-R]

A lot of jobs eventually disappear because someone somewhere wants to earn more money with a better product. So jobs disappear, why would we need to increase our population? Its going to be harder and harder to create jobs.

Serious question, what is going to happen when every company wants self driving cars thanks to capitalism? Where would those cab driver and truck driver get a job? That is a lot of people that need a job.

I know. Think of all those poor farmhands who got put out of a job because the insidious invention of the tractor. Our economy forever in ruin because of it.

[Klingers]

Theoretically, if we had humans having kids the way we do domesticated animals the human race could do a lot. In practice it ends up like communism: a nice ideal that's corrupted by whoever holds the power.

That's true, but I think to be honest it's just like Democracy, Dictatorships or Communism. There's good and bad to all those political philosophies.

In practice we probably need to find a mid-point. License to breed maybe, genetic screening for congenital disorders. Issue those breeding licenses to mechanics, neurosurgeons, teachers, firefighters, factory workers, artists, musicians. People who add some kind of subjective value to society.

Maybe sterilize three quarters of the white trash and all the hedge fund managers.

[High Marshal Sigismund]

Imagine if morals didn't go in the way of progress, SOMETIMES.

Just castrate anyone who has a low IQ. The quality of your populace would absolutely explode over a long-term period. Yes, it sounds incredibly edgy and inhumane, but it's also factual.

[truckboattruck]

because americans (white americans) are in severe decline
so is europe

at the current birthrate we are slated to go extinct in 400 years
it is not our problem....but it is our fault

cease all aid to africa, thats how you fix this

[Hiricine]

Because overpopulation doesn't exist yet, at least not in a macro sense. It exists in cities, where the cheap labor flocks to, but in reality, since there is no such thing as cheap labor without the "expensive" labor that drives it, each new person is more likely to yield an increase in cheap jobs available than to take one. The difference is when you import cheap labor from somewhere else and essentially have "empty labor calories" coming across your borders.

By the way even China and India aren't overpopulated... at least in their entirety. The vast majority of people in those countries live in an EXTREMELY small percentage of the land, and those two are the most extreme examples. There are empty, uninhabited cities in China because they're trying to get people out of the concentrated centers, and there is tons of empty, undeveloped land in both countries.

[SL1200]

I guess you haven't flown over the United States. There is no over population problem. None.

[Vanyali]

That's true, but I think to be honest it's just like Democracy, Dictatorships or Communism. There's good and bad to all those political philosophies.

In practice we probably need to find a mid-point. License to breed maybe, genetic screening for congenital disorders. Issue those breeding licenses to mechanics, neurosurgeons, teachers, firefighters, factory workers, artists, musicians. People who add some kind of subjective value to society.

Maybe sterilize three quarters of the white trash and all the hedge fund managers.

The problem is that half the people you've listed aren't good people because they have "useful" jobs, and what's useful today isn't useful for the future.

For example.. if we develop a far more advanced technology that allows you to remote-connect to databases with a brain implant.. you've all these teacher-bred (pretending it works like this, for the moment) people that are now utterly useless. To go back in time, if you implemented this for blacksmiths you'd have one hell of a job problem right now. Or wagon-makers. Both utterly essential at one point, now very niche hobbyists / specialists.

You also run into the problem that having one of those jobs doesn't make you a good candidate for anything. Neurosurgeons don't, as a group, raise children better. You might argue they raise them worse, due to an unsettled job schedule. An artist might be amazing when it comes to his craft, but not be able to hold a personal relationship worth a damn. A teacher might be the greatest teacher alive, but secretly hates kids. And so on.

The things you list aren't inheritable. They're personal likes and strengths, and aren't genetic in any way we've been able to find; a child born to two scientists might become an artist, or the opposite. They might be the next Einstein or Picasso. Or they might be the greatest Athlete to ever be born... because you can't predict that based on parents jobs.

[truckboattruck]

I guess you haven't flown over the United States. There is no over population problem. None.

indeed, we in fact need a higher birthrate.
I think if the problem was acknowledged and education was offered about the problem, more people would correct course.

children are not a burden to be avoided.

[Khaza-R]

Imagine if morals didn't go in the way of progress, SOMETIMES.

Just castrate anyone who has a low IQ. The quality of your populace would absolutely explode over a long-term period. Yes, it sounds incredibly edgy and inhumane, but it's also factual.

And by factual, you mean not based on fact at all?

[Draconian7972]

More people = more jobs created. You don't reach a point where you can't create more jobs despite more people being born.

Also, more people = more economic growth, which drives job creation.

That's why immigration is so important. As fewer caucasian Americans are having children, we need immigrants to drive population growth and economic growth.

Learn the lessons of Japan! They have no population growth and a poor economy. And they're opposed to immigration.

[Kaleredar]

That's true, but I think to be honest it's just like Democracy, Dictatorships or Communism. There's good and bad to all those political philosophies.

In practice we probably need to find a mid-point. License to breed maybe, genetic screening for congenital disorders. Issue those breeding licenses to mechanics, neurosurgeons, teachers, firefighters, factory workers, artists, musicians. People who add some kind of subjective value to society.

Maybe sterilize three quarters of the white trash and all the hedge fund managers.

Nope, sorry. Terrible idea. One, who are you to decide whose fit to breed, two, how do you regulate that, three, overpopulation is not a problem.

Overpopulation is not a problem. I'd say you've been reading too much Kurt Vonnegut, but he always treats things like breeding licenses and population caps as bad things, so...

[Theodarzna]

Also, more people = more economic growth, which drives job creation.

That's why immigration is so important. As fewer caucasian Americans are having children, we need immigrants to drive population growth and economic growth.

Learn the lessons of Japan! They have no population growth and a poor economy. And they're opposed to immigration.

I would argue that Japan is probably the best model since they will give up on the GDP goal and ever growing emphasis growth.

Immigration just makes your country a bottomless pit.

[Astronom]

Also, more people = more economic growth, which drives job creation.

If this were true, the economy would be a perpetual motion machine. Population growing at ~1% p/a, economy at ~3% p/a, forever.

Actually population and economic growth are limited by external factors, the main ones being:

* Natural resources.
* Energy (the most important factor).
* The capacity of the environment to absorb waste.

Malthus understood this over 200 years ago. However the limits to growth he foresaw have been delayed by the superabundance of cheap fossil fuel energy we've been exploiting like crazy. Of course, fossil fuels are fundamentally a finite resource...