Your thought's on the future of mankind and population control ?

[skrump]

So I was just partaking in the China thread and have come to a few conclusions about human society and our future and wish to partake in some serious discussion on the matter.

[ My thoughts]

I believe that you could justify killing a monumental amount of people in an effort to preserve and/or benefit humanity/society because you are reducing the strain that mankind places upon nature and the overall economic structure of any given society. (though I am not advocating it here)

I believe this because humanity is destined to lead itself to extinction as it shares many traits with a flesh eating parasite and will continue to consume and breed beyond all logical reasoning until their is nothing left for them to consume but each other.

[My argument]

Eventually it will get to the point that killing others will be a requirement for self preservation, at least if something isn't done to bring the birth/death ratios in line with each other which are only getting further apart due to the advancements in medical treatment and our ability to increase our natural lifespans.

In short consider that within the next two hundred years the entire world will be as densely populated as India is now and then ask yourself when that happens where you will grow your crops raise your livestock and build your dwellings.

If it came to that point today would you hesitate to cut down your fellow man as if they were mere blades of grass to survive or will you be one who gets cut down when the survival of the fittest mentality is forced into play because nature can no longer sustain the population.

Like it or not that is the direction humanity is heading in due to having an overzealous sense of morality that is valued over critical thinking and logic.


[My solution] (based on China's failed solution)

their needs to be laws in place that limit the total number of offspring people can have to 2 because it takes 2 people to make a child thus any less than 2 children would half the population every generation however the population will still dwindle due to the fact not everyone is going to have kids (this law could be adjusted every 10 years based on the needs of the society)

I am also for requiring everyone to pay for their own medical treatments considering once they are no longer productive members of society they are burdens to society and it is not an economically sound plan to extend the duration of a life no matter how badly you want to do it.

Now I seek your input especially if you have a more ethical way of population control that is still Logically sound.

[Deleted]

I really doubt that we won't be populating a other world by the time we get to that.

[Herecius]

If we lived in an Paris-density urban environment, the entire human population of Earth could fit inside France. Overpopulation isn't nearly as big a problem as you think.

The real problem is our distribution methods. They are, for the most part, slow as balls.

In order for the entire world to be as densely population as India... well, let's see. India has an average of 368 people per square kilometer. We would need a population of 54 BILLION to reach that. If what you actually meant was a population density equal to that of, say, New Delhi, then Earth would need a population of 866,495,600,000. That's 866 billion people.

[Squaddles]

I read somewhere that the human population due to birth rates will level off at around 10 billion in the 2050 - 2100 time frame anyway so...

[Sunseeker]

If we lived in an Paris-density urban environment, the entire human population of Earth could fit inside France. Overpopulation isn't nearly as big a problem as you think.

The real problem is our distribution methods. They are, for the most part, slow as balls.

And poor land management of course.

[fizzbob]

I really doubt that we won't be populating a other world by the time we get to that.

"i'm not worried about rent, i think i'll win the lottery thursday"

that's kind of what you just said and it's really dumb. we can't estimate IF we'll ever get to a point where getting to another world will be possible, we can estimate when the world reaches a critical population point, which is a problem that gets worse every day.

i think like everything money will decide who lives and who doesn't and one generation will be all it takes for people to go from "equal rights" to "that's just how we do things"

there really is no point in letting a dud live though. we cull the populations of farms because letting fucked up, retarded, or sick animals live is a negative in every sense of the word.

humans will eventually have to do the same. they'll terminate pregnancie with certain warning signs, they'll ban some people from reproducing due to the chance of passing on a disease, they'll put people to sleep when they're so old and fragile they can't even live without assistance, etc

yeah it's brutal but dragging down the quality of life for everyone so we can live 100 years (50 of them while lucid) is fucking stupid

[Herecius]

And poor land management of course.

That too. The majority of cities that have seen exploding populations (due to people moving towards urban centers) in the past two centuries were never built to plan for sure populations. City infrastructures on almost every level have to be reworked.

[insmek]

Overpopulation is a simply a widely believed myth. There is no overpopulation on a worldwide scale. There are areas that are overpopulated, but that's by choice. The Earth has plenty of room.

[Nengal]

If people want to make babies, they're going to make babies. Hell, people that don't want babies make babies. No matter how many laws are put in place, population will continue to grow until it reaches an equilibrium where the food output (or lack of) along with all other causes ensures a death to birth ratio of roughly 1.

And then there's the chance of an airborne, antibiotic-immune super virus that could wipe out billions.



EDIT: To the guy above me. Room isn't the issue, but providing enough resources is. Once ecosystems are destroyed by greedy people from countries without strict laws and we've used the available land for farming, the amount of people Earth can support will diminish dramatically.

[Tastyfish]

I think Tribalism is our biggest issue..

[fizzbob]

Overpopulation is a simply a widely believed myth. There is no overpopulation on a worldwide scale. There are areas that are overpopulated, but that's by choice. The Earth has plenty of room.

overpopulation isn't "too many people for the land"

it's "not enough food and healthcare to go around"

it would blow a lot of your minds what parts of india, africa, asia, south america, etc all look like

you couldn't survive a year living like those people

[Symphonic]

No limits on children, but parents should think about capability of caring for their children before having them. Sure you could HAVE 10 kids, but on one full time job? Doubt it.

[Rukentuts]

Child limits will most likely happen in our lifetime. Is it radical? Yes. Will it become necessary? Yes.

[fizzbob]

If people want to make babies, they're going to make babies. Hell, people that don't want babies make babies. No matter how many laws are put in place, population will continue to grow until it reaches an equilibrium where the food output (or lack of) along with all other causes ensures a death to birth ratio of roughly 1.

And then there's the chance of an airborne, antibiotic-immune super virus that could wipe out billions.



EDIT: To the guy above me. Room isn't the issue, but providing enough resources is. Once ecosystems are destroyed by greedy people from countries without strict laws and we've used the available land for farming, the amount of people Earth can support will diminish dramatically.

how the hell you go from overpopulation to zombie apocalypse shit

[Kalyyn]

We've still got tons of space on the moon. Just need to warm that bastard up.

[Rukentuts]

We've still got tons of space on the moon. Just need to warm that bastard up.

We should have elected Newt Gingrich. That fucker promised me a moonbase.

[Deleted]

Don't intervene with nature disasters, Mother Earth is sending us a signal!!!!!!

j/k

[Sunseeker]

That too. The majority of cities that have seen exploding populations (due to people moving towards urban centers) in the past two centuries were never built to plan for sure populations. City infrastructures on almost every level have to be reworked.

Which is unfortunately incredibly impractical, it'd be easier to build an entirely new city and demolish the old one.

[skrump]

Overpopulation is a simply a widely believed myth. There is no overpopulation on a worldwide scale. There are areas that are overpopulated, but that's by choice. The Earth has plenty of room.

Their is more than one type of overpopulation

Type #1 we run out of land "not very likely"
considering the superstructures that can be built to house people although nobody wants to live on desolate unfirtile land that cannot support agriculture so population growth will ultimately reduce our agriculture abilities.

Type #2 The population exceeds what nature can support "very likely"
the abusive use of natural resources and the massive amounts of waste we create.

Of course to realize their is a severe problem all you need to do is go into a densely populated city and take a deep breath then wonder about the air quality in 200 years when the global population has quadrupled considering every living mammal not only produces heat but carbon and methane as well.

[Faroth]

The baby boom generation has passed in America and studies are finding that more post baby boom generation members are waiting longer to marry and start families. I think that will contribute to a decline in birth rates in the next few decades, though teen pregnancy has increased.

As a cold hearted, but funny, friend of mine once said...

"Man, what we need is another good ol' bubonic plague."

On the other hand, with the hurricanes, earthquakes, and tsunamis of the last few years, it does make me a bit interested in the "Gaia's Revenge" theory.