overpopulation

[Draco-Onis]

I don't think so my solution would be 3 steps.

1. Increase the life span of human beings, through genetic manipulation and regeneration, allowing humans to live hundreds of years instead of a few decades.

This would allow science and experience to help advance technology even further.

2. Increase Access to education and allow people with longer life spans to expand their interest.

Trends have always shown that people who focus more on their general interest typically delay having families or children until later on or ever.

3. With 1 and 2, Expand space travel, since one the main barriers is life expectancy allowing space travel and colonization of other planers more realistic.

Longer Healthier life spans means, less birth, better science and expansion and colonizing of other planets. Learning to use and reuse what we've got and expanding.


Not everyone is going to want to live longer, maybe due to natural reasons can't.

People being able to hold off on reproducing or reproducing for the wrong reasons in other word only to have kids and live through them, because of our own limitations.

And Space Exploration and explanation, through living longer and better and more experiences scientific progress.

All ways you can get the population of EARTH down to a more managable and sustainable number, while at the same time, extending and improving the quality of EVERYONE all around.


No fucking genocide or forcing anybody to do anything, simply natural selection and choice.

1. Depending on the country on average the rich live a decade or two longer than the poor, any technology that would allow humans to live hundreds of years would be far too expensive for the average person. It could also be monetized in a way that would enable a new form of slavery where your life would be extended for years so you can work for pennies on the dollar.

2. We aren't doing that now never did it before but we are going to do that when there's less people because of reason...

3. You would run into the same problem as number 1 where the rich would dominate space exploration as they do now and these explorations would be their own thiefdom away from earth and all of its laws.

There would be tons of genocide, death and forcing people to do shit just like now, your problem isn't population number it's that you ignore human nature. In your alternate reality humans seem to have stopped being selfish, greedy assholes.

- - - Updated - - -

Our current population is not sustainable with the rate at which the earth replenishes natural resources, so yes obviously the earth is overpopulated. The rise of wide scale use of fossil fuels caused the human population to explode and at some point human civilization is going to collapse and billions of people are going to die in a very short window of time. There is no good solution to this problem.

Except for the fact that we have more than enough resources to feed, house and take care of everyone in luxury. We had more than enough in the past and we do now, having less people isn't going to magically turn humans into beings that will sacrifice and compromise for the good of the species and the planet. We could have stopped climate change decades ago even now we could make a huge dent but we don't because that's not who we are. When it's too late then people will demand action, climate deniers are still getting elected we obviously don't give a shit.

[P for Pancetta]

Every single person who thinks overpopulation is a problem, wants everyone else to die first.

Okay, so why aren't you volunteering to be culled?

Obviously the people who think overpopulation is a problem for them personally want a solution to it that does not involve them not experiencing the resolution of it. The reason overpopulation is a problem for them is because they believe their lives are impeded in various ways by the overabundance of other people. If one believes in a solution that involves culling people then it makes no sense for them to start culling themselves or the people they agree with, rather they'd start with the people who'd most vehemently oppose this and the people who they think are responsible for their perceived problems. Their reasoning is not illogical or hypocritical it's just extremely selfish and dark.

[Tuor]

Overpopulation is a snowball problem, it only gets bigger. Everyone needs food, and gathering enough food for everyone forces us mankind to chop forests down. We reaching a point were things are not sustainable.

Most of Europe is getting low birthrates, that in some countries, aren't lower because of emigration. But most of Africa, south america and parts of Asia are exploding.

I don't have any solution for this problem, and i ceartainly am not a supporter of forced sterilisation and other measures because they are against the individual dignity.

[Draco-Onis]

Overpopulation is a snowball problem, it only gets bigger. Everyone needs food, and gathering enough food for everyone forces us mankind to chop forests down. We reaching a point were things are not sustainable.

The cost of ending poverty around the world is estimated to be 175-250 billion dollars a year basically a rounding error for the first world's governments budgets and only a fraction of the pentagon's "defense" spending. We waste 1.6-2 billion tons of food per year enough to feed everyone starving on the planet 3 times over. You can cut to global population to a fraction of this, these inequalities will not go away they never have in the history of mankind, you would only be delaying an inevitable problem.

[cordrann]

Except for the fact that we have more than enough resources to feed, house and take care of everyone in luxury. We had more than enough in the past and we do now, having less people isn't going to magically turn humans into beings that will sacrifice and compromise for the good of the species and the planet. We could have stopped climate change decades ago even now we could make a huge dent but we don't because that's not who we are. When it's too late then people will demand action, climate deniers are still getting elected we obviously don't give a shit.

How are you defining luxury exactly? Are you considering that petroleum is a finite resource which will eventually no longer be viable and the majority of the world population is still entirely dependent on it? Petroleum isn't just energy. It is critical in just about everything relating to modern society and in much of the developing world. If your point is that our fate is totally preventable if humans were better at long term planning and weren't inherently selfish, maybe. But we aren't, so it is an irrelevant point. What could happen under ideal circumstances isn't nearly as relevant as what is most likely to actually happen.

[Shadowferal]

How is the water situation in the southwest these days?

[Draco-Onis]

How are you defining luxury exactly? Are you considering that petroleum is a finite resource which will eventually no longer be viable and the majority of the world population is still entirely dependent on it? Petroleum isn't just energy. It is critical in just about everything relating to modern society and in much of the developing world. If your point is that our fate is totally preventable if humans were better at long term planning and weren't inherently selfish, maybe. But we aren't, so it is an irrelevant point. What could happen under ideal circumstances isn't nearly as relevant as what is most likely to actually happen.

So you took that one sentence about luxury to me asking for larger use of fossil fuels? seriously? My point is the number of people is not the main issue here, it's scapegoating a larger more difficult issue about our very nature.

[Doctor Amadeus]

The cost of ending poverty around the world is estimated to be 175-250 billion dollars a year basically a rounding error for the first world's governments budgets and only a fraction of the pentagon's "defense" spending. We waste 1.6-2 billion tons of food per year enough to feed everyone starving on the planet 3 times over. You can cut to global population to a fraction of this, these inequalities will not go away they never have in the history of mankind, you would only be delaying an inevitable problem.

I don't think so, you could be correct, but then I think if that were true humanity is doomed. I think like with the dinosaurs, our end is likely be do at our own hands, an the speed of progress causing our things, to become more important than our humanity.

That is why overpopulation is a problem, not because there are too many people or it's too inconvenient, it's because we haven't balanced our resources. And as has been pointed out we have people needlessly dying in Wars, Poverty, lack of Food, Shelter, and Medicine. That isn't going to get better with more people right now. Especially since there isn't anywhere else to keep expanding on this planet that doesn't displace other animals of the non human variety.

[The Stormbringer]

I don't think so, you could be correct, but then I think if that were true humanity is doomed. I think like with the dinosaurs, our end is likely be do at our own hands, an the speed of progress causing our things, to become more important than our humanity.

That is why overpopulation is a problem, not because there are too many people or it's too inconvenient, it's because we haven't balanced our resources. And as has been pointed out we have people needlessly dying in Wars, Poverty, lack of Food, Shelter, and Medicine. That isn't going to get better with more people right now. Especially since there isn't anywhere else to keep expanding on this planet that doesn't displace other animals of the non human variety.

And you think shrinking our population is a better solution than just balancing our resources?

[Doctor Amadeus]

And you think shrinking our population is a better solution than just balancing our resources?

Do both. No need for more people.

[The Stormbringer]

Do both. No need for more people.

We see that happen naturally as countries become more developed, better educated, and more technologically advanced. Their populations start to trend towards smaller sizes. Focus on balancing the resources first, help everyone get on more even footing, and eventually your fears of overpopulation will disappear.

[Doctor Amadeus]

We see that happen naturally as countries become more developed, better educated, and more technologically advanced. Their populations start to trend towards smaller sizes. Focus on balancing the resources first, help everyone get on more even footing, and eventually your fears of overpopulation will disappear.

We’ll see. I think renewable energy would be a good start.

[Mekh]

I think like with the dinosaurs, our end is likely be do at our own hands, an the speed of progress causing our things, to become more important than our humanity.

Ah yes, the dinosaurs whose end was famously caused by their own hands...

[Soulwind]

Ah yes, the dinosaurs whose end was famously caused by their own hands...

Didn't they teach you at school that Sephirothsaurus Rex summoned the meteor?

[cordrann]

So you took that one sentence about luxury to me asking for larger use of fossil fuels? seriously? My point is the number of people is not the main issue here, it's scapegoating a larger more difficult issue about our very nature.

I probably should have formatted that better, I meant those as two entirely separate questions. I'm not trying to be combative, I'm curious about what the basis for your ideas is in a long-term sense.

[Nastard]

Ah yes, the dinosaurs whose end was famously caused by their own hands...

I was so baffled by that statement that I had to google search to see if people really believe dinosaurs killed themselves off. It turns out that around 10 years ago Fox News misunderstood scientific research then framed the findings to suggest dinosaurs passed so much gas it contributed to global warming.

Yes that's fucking right. Fox News convinced people that dinosaurs farted themselves to death. I can't handle this, I'm going to bed.

[Tuor]

Didn't they teach you at school that Sephirothsaurus Rex summoned the meteor?

This was what really happened...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYXpRWHVIPE

[qwerty123456]

And you think shrinking our population is a better solution than just balancing our resources?

Fewer people means fewer needed resources, fewer people in poverty, fewer crimes, less human suffering, less contribution to global warming, etc... The only "positive" thing about more people is exploiting them for capitalism by using them as a consumer, a cheap source of labor, or both. And humans are greedy dicks. You think some dude getting an iphone every year is going to want to become Amish and go to the local library for any computer/technology time after we have depleted every X mine on the planet and our only source left of it is from recycling old products which doesn't have a 100% collection rate and so even that supply dwindles? So yes shrinking a population is a better solution than just balancing resources.

[Draco-Onis]

I probably should have formatted that better, I meant those as two entirely separate questions. I'm not trying to be combative, I'm curious about what the basis for your ideas is in a long-term sense.

I think population is just a scapegoat and fails to address permanent solutions which are systematic. What the population argument boils down to is that people don't want to change anything and kick the can down the road for another generation to deal with.

- - - Updated - - -

Fewer people means fewer needed resources, fewer people in poverty, fewer crimes, less human suffering, less contribution to global warming, etc... The only "positive" thing about more people is exploiting them for capitalism by using them as a consumer, a cheap source of labor, or both. And humans are greedy dicks. You think some dude getting an iphone every year is going to want to become Amish and go to the local library for any computer/technology time after we have depleted every X mine on the planet and our only source left of it is from recycling old products which doesn't have a 100% collection rate and so even that supply dwindles? So yes shrinking a population is a better solution than just balancing resources.

The world wars and centuries of suffering when there were fewer people around would have a word with you. Ultimately you don't want to help the planet because unless you found a way to cap the population having less people around is not solving the issues something systematic change does.

[The Stormbringer]

Fewer people means fewer needed resources, fewer people in poverty, fewer crimes, less human suffering, less contribution to global warming, etc... The only "positive" thing about more people is exploiting them for capitalism by using them as a consumer, a cheap source of labor, or both. And humans are greedy dicks. You think some dude getting an iphone every year is going to want to become Amish and go to the local library for any computer/technology time after we have depleted every X mine on the planet and our only source left of it is from recycling old products which doesn't have a 100% collection rate and so even that supply dwindles? So yes shrinking a population is a better solution than just balancing resources.

Incorrect. Currently, about... one or two sevenths of the world have modern levels of infrastructure, education, technology, and research. That's a fraction of the population capable of performing research and advancing the human species. If suddenly every nation in the world was at the level of say, Canada, then you now have several times as many people capable of adding to that research. And that's not even going into things like art, music, culture, and so on. I'd recommend watching this video: