Population Control

[Anonymous No.6147896]

I'll first state that I know this problem can only correct itself naturally but lets discuss it anyways.

Do we really need more than 7 billion people on this planet? No matter how efficient we get there will be a maximum population allowed. There will come a point where more people puts resources so low that more people will be starving to death or prone to diseases.

So why do you insist we keep a naturalistic approach to this? As a group, we could take action now, and minimize the suffering of many in years to come. We are probably the smartest creatures in this galaxy, smart enough to recognize a problem, but some how not smart enough to take action now.

[Drege No.6147905]

I as one whole heartedly support eugenics, stringent population control and sterilization of impoverished communities - not just africans and mexicans, there is just as many white people globally that just lack the self control to not procreate.
>White uhmerican.

[Anonymous No.6147939]

>>6147896
>Do we really need more than 7 billion people on this planet?
Do we *not* need 7 billion people on this planet? Is there a unit to measure how much "we need" something?

[Anonymous No.6147967]

>>6147939
>Do we *not* need 7 billion people on this planet?

No, we don't need 7 billion people.

>Is there a unit to measure how much "we need" something?

I would say the employment rate is a good measurement of how much we need humans.

[Anonymous No.6147971]

I don't think we need /pol/ invaders either, but thats just the gist of the joint.

Deal with it, don't make kids if it bothers you so much.

[Anonymous No.6147975]

>>6147967
>No, we don't need 7 billion people.
We don't need them because...

>I would say the employment rate is a good measurement of how much we need humans.
Irrelevant. China has 20% of the world's population and only 4.10% of unmeployment. While Greece doesn't even have a 1/20 of its population and yet has over 20% unemployed.

[Anonymous No.6147978]

>>6147967
>I would say the employment rate is a good measurement of how much we need humans.
More people mens more demand for goods and services, therefore more people means there're more jobs in demand.

Maybe you can't get a job and you're just blaming that there're people out there with more skills who got the jobs you wanted.

[Anonymous No.6147980]

>>6147905

Isn't that unfair to divide it by race/place of origin? Why not keep tabs on every individual born in a type of omniscient way and by the time they reach "x" age, decide if they are fit enough to continue living?

I say "x" because age is something that will be debated upon what is the right time.

Now granted this way would be much harder but coming from a "white uhmerican" I don't think I would be up for being part of population control without atleast proving my worth.

[Anonymous No.6147981]

You are proposing sterilizing the Africans, Arabs and South Asians? The only groups with population growth?

You need to conquer them first.

[Anonymous No.6147983]

>>6147975
>Irrelevant
But are you willing to acknowledge it can't go on forever? If you aren't then I am arguing with a wall.

>>6147978
>More people mens more demand for goods and services, therefore more people means there're more jobs in demand.
This pattern is unsustainable. Maybe you can make a good argument for a number higher than 7 billion but do you really expect a population of 50 billion to be sustainable?

[Anonymous No.6147988]

>>6147983
>But are you willing to acknowledge it can't go on forever? If you aren't then I am arguing with a wall.
I am willing to acknowledge it as long as you provide real, solid arguments. There I told you why your 'employment argument' is a logical fallacy. Can you provide any more arguments to support your theory that there can't be more than 7 billion people on this planet?

[Anonymous No.6147996]

Where did you get that graph mang? Lots of populations go over carrying capacity and survive. It's a shame because one of my scientific interests is curing disease, but I know that for every person I help, im furthering the population problem. However, I believe that when the time comes we will have either colonized another planet or we will have found someway to curb the growth.

[Anonymous No.6148002]

>>6147983
>This pattern is unsustainable.
The pattern changes, it has changed.

>do you really expect a population of 50 billion to be sustainable?
With today's technology? Absolutely not. But you see, 2 millenia ago, the planet could not support a population higher than a few hundred millions. After the agricultural revolutions and many inventions, we can now support billions and billions. Therefore, we can conclude that as technology improves and food yields ever more, feeding 50 billion people might not be difficult.

Same applies with things like housing, employment, recreation, etc.

[Anonymous No.6148006]

>>6147939
Yes, I think that's the whole problem. We have to decide what the best situation is. Who gets to decide? Those other people do stupid things, so of course I have more right to these resources.

No, no, no, I REALLY AM enlightened, so I know what's best for everybody! I'm not just being selfish!

Sure.

Power, real economic power, is people exercising the right given to them by nature to decide what the best situation is for everyone. A lot of people just hurt everyone else as much as possible and take as much as possible for themselves. But, not everyone.

Everyone wants more power. Educated people think their education gives them the right to more power, and it should and does, to an extent.

[Anonymous No.6148005]

>>6147988
7 billion is just a number. I'm not here to argue what number can be sustained without a problem. I am arguing that planning now will minimize the suffering of millions later.

Pretend Earth can only sustain 100 people. If the population is at 100 but 30 members are pregnant then in 9 months the population will have grown to 130-n = x where n is the number of deaths. If x is over 100 then society must choose directly or indirectly who will be killed off.

[Anonymous No.6148008]

>>6147996

[Anonymous No.6148011]

>>6147996
>found someway to curb the growth.
medicine has been historically the best way of "curbing the growth"
same with increase in living standards.
You do realize that the most western nations are already at break even or even losing population?

Best way of cutting population growth is to make people live long and happy lives with plenty of condoms and long education.
Add large amoun of anime for extra effect.

[Anonymous No.6148017]

>>6148005
>I am arguing that planning now will minimize the suffering of millions later.
Whose suffering? What makes you think intervening will help? You know why there're so many poor people in Africa? It's because people decided to enable them giving them food and aid. Result? More people than an uneveloped continent can support.

Just leave things alone and everything will be just fine. Stop with your messiah and saviour complex.

[Anonymous No.6148021]

>>6148002

Without faster than light travel you will still have a foreseeable upper limit to the population. Earth has 1.605*10^15 square feet. Lets say somehow we get to a population equivalent to the square feet on Earth. How are you going to sustain a larger population than the moving room it allows?

[Anonymous No.6148025]

>>6148006
No you don't understand. THIS is a real PROBLEM that MUST be solved!

Just give me the power to make all decisions and I'll help you.

[Anonymous No.6148028]

>>6148021
If you're going to extrapolate to those extremes, I might as well do it myself.

By the time we reach half of that population density, we will have developed the technology to create wormholes. Futhermore, if horizontal space is an issue, we will build towards the heavens.

[Anonymous No.6148031]

>>6148028
>we will have developed the technology to create wormholes

Unless you can see the future you can't know this. There is no evidence we will have faster than light travel before a population crisis has occurred. You guys make me extrapolate to the extremes to show you that Earth does have a finite population limit. So why aren't we doing anything about it?

[Anonymous No.6148039]

>>6148031
>So why aren't we doing anything about it?
Because populations decline. You are implying the current growth is so extreme we'll have 6 trillion people in a few centuries, when in reality population growth is decreasing every decade, and in the first world, population is actually declining.

[Anonymous No.6148044]

>>6148031
>Unless you can see the future you can't know this.
Aren't you the one acting like a prophet about the suffering of people in the future?

[Anonymous No.6148049]

If you give everyone toys, food and entertainment they buy those things instead of having kids. You see it in every developed nation.

That's how you solve problems most effectively, make them solve themselves. Any solution that requires active enforcement is doomed to fail, see drug war.

[Anonymous No.6148127]

>>6148017
kek i knew this was bill gates fault somehow. anon do you think it is also a bad idea to help the Philippines and Haiti with aid after natural disasters?

[Anonymous No.6148149]

We haven't even begun to utilize the full capacity of this world's resources. 1/3 of food is thrown away, most land is fallow, the only resource that's a problem is water and that's easily solved by desalination plants which already exist in some cities such as San Diego. As long as we're not stupid and overextend a location's ability to recover, such as overfishing, which is again easily solved by fish farming 7 billion people is no problem at all, hell even 100 times that number is no problem at all and that completely ignores our ability to tap into the resources of the solar system.

Besides the fact that families are having fewer and fewer children everywhere.

So please explain to me sir, why right now we need any sort of population control whatsoever? Eh?

[Anonymous No.6148173]

>>6148039
this
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/sixbillion/sixbilpart1.pdf

[Anonymous No.6148329]

>>6148149
Look at the birth rates of different ethnic groups, look at the societies they produce.

Look at what (and who) is feeding the growing population.

[Anonymous No.6148395]

Start by sterilizing/euthanizing people with genetic defects.

[Drege No.6149173]

>>6147980
Well white low class americans have too many kids, black low-middle class americans have too many kids, south/central americans (termed "mexicans" by us white folks) have WAY too many kids (Catholicism forbids contraceptives), from what I understand indian/middle eastern transplants and descendants of past immigrants overpopulate north/west/central europe.
Thats about it, mind you too many is 2+ children per HOUSHOLD; if havier and his 19 brothers and there 8 wives and 3 sisters all have 1.5 children, or habib and his wife have 12 kids in london, or samuel and his lady letitia have 8 kids in chicago, his brother gets out of prison, for selling crack gets his hoe in with him (who has 5 kids from 3 other men), or billy-john and billy-jean down in tenntucky have 9 kids, been drawing unemployment, welface, wic, HEAP and he's working under the table.
>THIS SHIT HAS GOT TO STOP!!!
>Idiocracy.

[Anonymous No.6149194]

DON'T PANIC

VR and AR and robot sex will, within a century, be just as or almost as good as real sex. Better even, you could virtually fuck anyone you want.

Roughly 70% of births in america are "accidents" (ie the woman was only pretending to take the pill, or the birth control failed as it does sometimes.)

So once technology provides a superior alternative to conventional intercourse, the birth rate should fall by over half due to fewer "accidents".

Or we could just widely adopt the IUD but nooooo women are scared of IUDs because of some shit that happened with earlier models that isn't a problem anymore. The pill? Fuck off, shits primitive.

Women changes her mind about babies one day out of the month, one day of not taking that pill is all it takes. Obviously many women are going to have "accidents".

[Anonymous No.6149197]

>>6149194
Occulus Rift, CastAR, and Meta Spaceglasses all come out in 2014.

:)

[Anonymous No.6149201]

>>6147896

And I thought I'd find smart people on this board.
This is worse than /b/.

[Anonymous No.6149210]

>>6149194
PROBLEM

The shit poor indians, africans, and asians that are the real overbreeders, won't be able to afford this technology.

What it will really do is vastly reduce white and japanese birth rates (which are already at sustainable rates), while the other races breed on.

I'm not even racist. I don't think the truth is racism. The truth that we must realize, even though it isn't "politically correct", is that some demographics are more responsible for overpopulation then others.

>white uhmurricans
Are such a small percentage of overbreeding compared to examples in other races.
Frankly, the dumb white uhmurrican breeders are the only ones keeping our race alive.

[Anonymous No.6149211]

>>6149201
wut you don't think population growth is a problem?

[Anonymous No.6149213]

>>6149211
it isn't.
op's graph is shit

[Anonymous No.6149218]

>>6149211
He is one of these people who believe the food distribution system is the problem. That we can grow enough food for everyone.

What these people fail to realize is that we won't. We won't ever organize ourselves that efficiently. Furthermore, billions of people will always put incredible strain on the worlds ecosystems (many of which are collapsing or have collapsed). But people like this don't care about that.

[Anonymous No.6149228]

>>6149218
not him, but there's just not a problem to solve with overpopulation.
you just want to legalize eugenics

[Anonymous No.6149239]

>>6149228
>there's just not a problem to solve with overpopulation
overpopulation IS the problem to be solved

Either by learning how to live with all these people (we're doing terribly at that so far judging by environmental damage and starvation rates).

Or by reducing the population, which doesn't always mean eugenics. When standard of living is raised, birth rates go down. Even accounting for how more children survive when standard of living is raised, the net population growth still goes down.

OR, we find a humane way of supporting a reasonable level of eugenics. Eugenics doesn't mean we have to go full Hitler. We already have eugenics programs in place right now, at a hospital near you, we test the fetus in the womb and if the baby is going to pop out horribly retarded or diseased, there's the option of abortion (oh noes!). We've been doing that for years.

[Anonymous No.6149242]

>>6149239
no it isn't.
there's plenty of resources.

[Anonymous No.6149245]

>>6149242
>Either by learning how to live with all these people (we're doing terribly at that so far judging by environmental damage and starvation rates).

wow, why not read my fucking post before commenting you ignorant shit

[Anonymous No.6149247]

>>6149228
>>6149213

With eugenics it's the same as with these other "great" ideas, namely communism, building of empires, religious crazes etc.
They had their time, killed a lot of people in the name of the betterment of the world. Afterwards these ideas dwindle and end up in this kind of half-existence. The are still there, but only some nutjobs keep believing.

The rest of us finds some new, flashy and modern sounding "great ideals" to start killing for.

>>6147896
Thus: Go and start with your own vasectomy!

[Anonymous No.6149249]

>>6149242
>there's plenty of resources.
Then the problem becomes how to effectively distribute those resources

>there's just not a problem to solve with overpopulation.
fucking stupid

[Anonymous No.6149253]

>>6149218
>not enough food for everyone

then how the fuck are seven billion people alive? what do they eat? do several billion eat dirt?

No. there's enough food for everyone on the planet right now. That's why they're here. That's how they're here. That's not the problem. Stop saying that food is the fucking problem. Driving me fucking nuts.

[Anonymous No.6149254]

>>6149249
>there is a problem to solve with overpopulation.
fuckkin stupid
> Then the problem becomes how to effectively distribute those resources
the free market will distribute them

go save the word by following this guys advice >>6149247

[Anonymous No.6149257]

>>6149247
The problem with eugenics is "who decides who gets born and who doesn't?"

Our leadership decides, and that is the problem. Our world leaders are fucking assholes.

Eugenics done right, on a small and humane scale, isn't a terrible thing. But we are not mature enough as a species to handle it. And possibly we never will be.

[Anonymous No.6149259]

>>6149253
> do several billion eat dirt?
my autism made me link this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geophagy#Current_practice

[Anonymous No.6149260]

>>6149239
>OR, we find a humane way of supporting a reasonable level of eugenics. Eugenics doesn't mean we have to go full Hitler. We already have eugenics programs in place right now, at a hospital near you, we test the fetus in the womb and if the baby is going to pop out horribly retarded or diseased, there's the option of abortion (oh noes!). We've been doing that for years.

The actual burden of the seriously physically or mentally disabled on straining the Earth's resources and nations' economies is almost negligible.

Almost everyone born has the capacity to make net contribution to economies. Getting rid of the clinically retarded will make almost no impact on overall population levels.

[Anonymous No.6149264]

>>6149242

>BUT THE PEAK OIL! omg!!!

We had, peak teak, guano peak, tin peak, peak whale oil, peak ivory, peak ostrich feather, peak salpeter, peak horse shit...

humans society has an enormous, endless capacity to adapt.

[Anonymous No.6149267]

>>6149257
r u a troll?

[Anonymous No.6149271]

>>6148329

what people need is not eugenics but progressive culture, opportunities for gainful employment, education, social mobility.

these are enough to bring even developing world populations to below replacement levels.

[Anonymous No.6149276]

>>6149257

See, I am from Germany - So, I am veeeeeeeeeeeeery suspicious of any ideas, that try to change humans, or try to create the "new human".

I know all too well about eugenics and engineering of societies.
We invented that shit.

[Anonymous No.6149287]

>>6149253
>then how the fuck are seven billion people alive?
high birth rates
meanwhile
"according to the Food and Agriculture Organization, the less severe condition of undernourishment currently affects about 842 million people, or about one in eight (12.5%) people in the world population."

ouch, but hey, at least they're still alive right?

"Total number of children that die every year from hunger: 1.5 million"
Yikes, and that's just the kids

"In the UN report of 2003, 25,000 die (of starvation) each day."

So yeah, clearly we have a fucking problem here.

[Anonymous No.6149290]

>>6149260
That wasn't my point. My point was that eugenics isn't always a dirty word. And that eugenics is still practiced in all American hospitals.

[Anonymous No.6149294]

>>6149287
the free market will fix it.
> ugh i can't afford food i starve to death
no kids
> yay i can afford food. i can make babie
damn kids

[Anonymous No.6149297]

>>6149276
Yes, you are right to be cautious. As I said earlier, we're not mature enough as a species to handle eugenics at any large scale. We always take things too far, because the general population is full of hate and ignorance, and our leaders are assholes.

So eugenics probably isn't the solution

[Anonymous No.6149302]

>>6149294
That's not how it works

>ugh i can't afford food i starve to death
have 15 kids before you die, half of them starve to death
>yay i can afford food. i can make babies
but i will only have one or two for some reason

That's how it works. That's what is happening.

[Anonymous No.6149303]

>>6149276
Actually the US was ahead of you somewhat.

[Motie Musashi No.6149308]

We are just another mote in God's eye, as foreseen by Niven and Pournelle more than twenty years ago.

[Anonymous No.6149310]

>>6149297

Go watch "the man from earth" for a healthy dose of sanity and optimism!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hM_zl2GIg44

[Anonymous No.6149311]

>>6149276
>>6149303
Do you even Sparta?

[Anonymous No.6149319]

>>6149239
>overpopulation IS the problem to be solved

No, you're still not getting it. World population growth has left the exponential curve and is expected to peak by the 2050s at 9 or 10 billion and then maintain negative growth until it levels out at about a billion less than that. This means that the highest human population that will ever happen has already occurred. We will never experience population growth that fast again. It's over. But you're here to tell us that the next 3 billion of slow growth will doom us all, huh? Listen here:

There will be no Malthusian catastrophe.

And what are you on about with greater population means less resources available? More workers means more production, not less. Resources become a problem if the population is so high that Earth just runs out, but that isn't going to happen unless we continue to grow exponentially. At this point, oil is a concern regardless of what the population growth does, and there is every indication that this challenge will be overcome with new technologies.

FYI, this is, unfortunatley, a very common misconception. People come to /sci/ all the time to tell us about how population growth is going to doom us all, and every time they are thoroughly refuted. Please, educate yourself and stop this nonsense. Thomas Malthus was wrong. You are wrong.

[Anonymous No.6149323]

>>6149310

I read the wikipedia article and it doesn't sound like it would contradict my perception of general humanity being generally hate filled and ignorant and our leaders assholes.

Is your definition of "sanity", a belief that people aren't general hatemongers and ignorant shits and our leaders can be nice? Cause that's just not reflected by reality.

[Anonymous No.6149327]

>>6149319

In short: The growth of population and the need for new resources is what fuels human inventiveness.

>If there are enough bananas, why should we ever climb down from the trees?

[Anonymous No.6149328]

>>6149319
i hope everyone has the chance to read this

[Anonymous No.6149330]

>>6149323
I can lead a horse to water, but I cannot make it drink.

[Anonymous No.6149331]

>>6149327
>>6149319

And where will this lead us?

[Anonymous No.6149332]

>>6149319
We are already overpopulated. The problems to be solved include proper distribution of resources (which we are not presently doing), and a reduction on the massive damage we are causing the worlds ecosystems.

I already knew that the population was expected to peak by the 2050s at 9 or 10 billion. That is not "slow growth". We are poorly handling the 7 billion we have now. An extra 3 billion will be a painful burden on our moronically distributed supply system and severely damaged ecosystems.

And yes, there will be no Malthusian catastrophe (unless we are wrong in our predictions of population growth leveling off). But that doesn't mean we don't still have a problem here.

25 thousand die of starvation every day, that is a catastrophe. Most of the worlds coral reefs have been fucking wrecked, by us, that's a catastrophe. The rainforests are being fucking raped for more cattle (a very inefficient protein) and that is a catastrophe.

There is not grand solution, but we do need many smaller solutions. Improvements in the way we handle and distribute resources.

[Anonymous No.6149334]

>>6149302
> have 15 kids before you die, half of them starve to death
this isn't happening.
if you don't have the calories you can't reproduce
they are needed through out the whole process from becoming fertile to having the kid.

The only way I can see what you are describing as happening has to be local mismanagement of resources. Africa isn't a nice place right now.
This isn't because there isn't enough resources. This is because of local warlords choosing who lives and dies.

anyways if you want to talk about mismanagement of resources
>>>/pol/ is that way

[Anonymous No.6149338]

>>6149334
It is happening
People with lower standards of living breed more.

Severely malnourished africans breed way way more then middle class americans.

When times are tough, it is human instinct to breed more, not less.

[Anonymous No.6149343]

>>6149338

Yes sir. And younger too.

[Anonymous No.6149344]

>>6149331

To the stars. To the stars, one day.

[Anonymous No.6149345]

>>6149338
you physically can't.
if you are starving you cannot have children

[Anonymous No.6149346]

>>6149338
>it's happening

As the standard of living goes up birth rate goes down because children become a huge burden to educate and take care of. In agricultural poverty economics it's a boon to have kids, not so in developing countries.

So what, if things get really bad and they attack us we just drone them.

[Anonymous No.6149349]

>>6149344
that would be an awesome picture if it weren't for the improbably massive boat and building. that just ruins it for me

[Anonymous No.6149351]

>>6149345
you have asspurgers

he clearly meant starvation as in "severe malnourishment that if continued will result in death within months or years."

[Anonymous No.6149356]

>>6149346
Things are really bad for them, and they are human. They are us.

The only "them" are our psychopathic barely human world leaders. And maybe aliens if they exist

[Anonymous No.6149359]

>>6149356
They have a very different world view and set of values than we do. They are definitely not us.

[Anonymous No.6149360]

>>6149331
Our friend from Germany in this thread should have a good idea of that if they still live there.

This leads to economic challenges stemming from stagnating or negative population growth. Why? Because economies need to grow to remain healthy, and so far throughout history that has been achieved by consistently growing workforces through population growth. Germany is facing this challenge right now and is responding to it.

The response that makes sense is to continue to grow your workforce with automation; robots in the workplace. With automation, you don't need more human workers constantly entering the workforce so your economy can grow, you just need more workers, and they can be robots.

This eventuality leads to some interesting scenarios... I'll leave it to your imagination.

[Anonymous No.6149362]

>>6149360
> achieved by consistently growing workforces through population growth.
and technology and resource management (gobernment)

[Anonymous No.6149364]

>>6149359
They GENERALLY have a different world view and values. But not by some incredibly fuckmassive degree. There are still more similarities then differences.

And I'm racist as fuck, probably more racist then you are. But I still see them as human, and that to me means they are "us", whatever their differences.

[Anonymous No.6149384]

>>6149360
Yep. Population ageing is going to be a problem over here that needs adressing.
This will occur anywhere in the increasing modernized world.
Even developing countries. For example places like Kenya or Tansania are experiencing dramitic change in pop. growth, since the econmy starts to stabilze and the effects of urbanisation kicked in.

>I suspect it has something to do with increasing percentage ofwage labour
>and the effects this has on children as a resource
> - children in family buisness are potential succesors, in wage labour
>they are not not.

[Anonymous No.6149764]

>>6147896
If You want to talk about the math or the medical, that's cool. Talking about what we 'should do' or what is 'right' is for /pol/.

Also cite your damn graphs. Seems only like a 1/4 of /sci/ post cites anything, what the hell? There's got to be more than pointless talking. Actual math or links to actual studies.