Overpopulation

Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by Mortem, May 25, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mortem

    Mortem Well-Known Member

    So there's a lot of talk about global warming and how to reduce our impact on the environment. There's a lot of ideas, about alternative fuels, cars that consume less fuel, efficient buildings, veganism etc., and indeed, it's all good I suppose. I heard something about the goal being a 50% reduction of our current pollution by the year 2050.

    Like I said, new technology and global awareness is all good... but is it really enough? Even if each person halved their pollution til 2050, we've pretty much doubled our numbers by then, no? Status quo?

    The way I see it, the only really effective way to reduce our stress on the environment is to decrease the population - there will be less consumption -> less demand -> less production -> less use of natural resources -> less pollution = problem solved!
    Do we really have to be 6 billion people? Why not 60 million? NO NO NO, I'm not talking about wars and genocide here, it's enough if people stop breeding for a while.

    To get something like this to work the government in each country would have to set up strict regulations regarding breeding. No more "child-support-money" - instead, some sort of penalty for those who breed. These regulations could be removed once the population has reached acceptable numbers.

    Could there also be other benefits from a reduced population? Maybe it'd be easier to gain control of the next pandemic? I suppose a downside would be that the stock markets would definately take a well needed plunge, seeing that the companies wouldn't be able to show any growth anymore that'd probably cause some chaos for a while, but eventually the markets would settle I think.

    Ok, if you read through all of the above you have my admiration. It's merely a suggestion, personally I tend to think that whatever is and whatever happens is insignificant anyway.
     
  2. fromthatshow

    fromthatshow Staff Alumni

    I'm sure if there's not a war there will be some kind of disease. Mother Nature knows how to take care of herself. I'm guessing something like the black plague but worse.
     
  3. Mortem

    Mortem Well-Known Member

    Some months ago I heard an interview with some sort of expert from WHO on the radio... she said that a pandemic is expected and that it'll be the worst ever seen. I don't remember how many % of the population it'd wipe out, but it was a LOT. Thanks for the swift reply :)
     
  4. lifeisashedog

    lifeisashedog Well-Known Member

    But if we stop breeding, who will feed me and change my diapers and push my wheelchair when I retire. Besides, if stock markets collapse my pension savings will go pa-pa! :eek:hmy:
     
  5. I'm in support of decreased population. This world is overcrowded as it is.
     
  6. Mortem

    Mortem Well-Known Member

    Well, maybe a robot could push your wheelchair, feed you and change your diapers. Hopefully it comes without bugs and doesn't feed you your diapers. :tongue:
    As for your pension savings... uhm... short positions? :laugh:
     
  7. BioHomocide

    BioHomocide Well-Known Member

    There could be a new ice age or a violent pandemic of disease and war.

    There are so many ways for people to die, something will happen eventually.
     
  8. me1

    me1 Well-Known Member


    I partially agree that education is the way to go. But dont hold out much hope that merely teaching people what they -should- do, is going to automatically mean that they -do- do it. Harsh penalities always seem to help! Human nature cannot be changed, an education is simply a papering over of the cracks.
     
  9. Bigman2232

    Bigman2232 Well-Known Member

    I think a better way to lower the population is to stop keeping people alive. We keep increasing the average age that we live to so that the population never decreases. I actually think that the birth rate in the world is lower than it used to be, we just keep so many people alive into their 80 and 90's or more and bring back people from the brink of death.

    We need to let people go once their natural body has grown too old to function and we need to enforce a stupidity clause on health care. If you try to jump a bridge on your mountain bike and get hurt, you are a burden to the world and deserve to die.

    If anyone looks at humans with logic, they will see we are a useless plague and see that some people should not be saved.
     
  10. nedflanders

    nedflanders Well-Known Member

    So you're proposing to kill off 99% of the world's population. I'm impressed. Not even Hitler aspired to that.

    Errum, no, it isn't enough. Population growth is generally an exponential function. Starting from any non-zero number of people will eventually lead to very high populations again.

    And exactly who would define what an acceptable number of people is? Environmental lunatics? Islamic fundamentalists?

    Sure. Fewer people probably means fewer fat people, and we all hate them, don't we? After all, they take up more than their share of the precious mother earth's oxygen.

    You've got to be kidding. There are no examples of civilizations continuing to exist after losing 99% of their populations. People just drift off into the forest.

    And so we see where nihilism leads us. A modest proposal to kill off nearly everyone on Earth in order to save the snail darter and spotted owl.
     
  11. Testify

    Testify Well-Known Member

    Global population increase is slowing down rapidly. Already, amongst natives of Europe and North America, the birth rates are much lower than the death rates, it's only immigration that's stopped the economy imploding.
    Give it time, things will settle down.
     
  12. Mortem

    Mortem Well-Known Member

    Thank you, thank you. :laugh: Although not kill, they can live their lives as long as they wish... and then die out.

    Absolutely! But it's pretty safe to say that it'll take quite a while til the population reaches the current levels again, and by the time that happens - repeat the procedure - regulate.

    My mom, actually. :tongue:
    Or... perhaps a more scientific approach - with variables such as living standards, sufficient natural resources for a forseeable future, consideration of other species etc.

    LOL

    Not necessarily. Sure... if several atomic bombs went off and 99% of the population died off in an instant. But this will go on over several decades... there would be plenty of time to adjust and adapt.

    LMAO!!
    Yet again, it wasn't really a proposal to *kill off* nearly everyone. You reckon a human life is somehow "worth more" than a snail darter or a spotted owl btw? :smile:
     
  13. Mortem

    Mortem Well-Known Member


    Good points there.
     
  14. Someone

    Someone Active Member

    The best way would be through an artificial disease.. If anyone here's played Deus Ex, then you would know the plotline. :tongue:
     
  15. nedflanders

    nedflanders Well-Known Member

    Of course. No scare quotes necessary.
     
  16. XXXXX

    XXXXX Antiquities Friend

    I think the process of reducing population has already started - sticking food into SUV's gonna have an impact elsewhere.
     
  17. nedflanders

    nedflanders Well-Known Member

    The devil's in the details of proposals like yours. So I'd expect a superior intellect like yours to be able to flesh this proposal out a bit. For example, you mention living standards. Exactly how poor does a person have to be for his life to not be worth living? I mean, obviously, if you don't have cable tv, you're better off dead. But should we prevent people from coming into a world without playstation 3s?

    My proposal? Liberals and ugly chicks go first. Then the rest of us will get back to making babies.
     
  18. Darken

    Darken Well-Known Member

    Some peoples post here are very insensitive.

    I'm totally against any kind of immoral ways of polulation reduction. I'd rather die with some dignity, than become corrupt and cruel to survive.

    The shadow cabal, plans to use artificial epidemics and unhealthy lifestyle changes to reduce the polulation by 80+ percent. Unhealthy diet for example, can lead to getting cancers and other diseases much easier. Aids is a good example of how this would work for them. I've heard it is suppose to kill off two thirds of some african countries. Some crazy huge number like that. It is a slow and painful death. Depression is suspiciously wide spread, it almost doesn't seem natural. People every where are being doped up on meds. People are become more and more seperated from each other even though we are getting more and more ways to connect (internet, cell phones). How can super corrupt leaders expect to make a better world? Just doesn't make any sense to me.

    I do agree though that we can't let our numbers get too high. No one should have to die, we just need to make stricter breeding laws. and probably selective breeding also. So that the best human genes are passed on, reducing the suffering in the world because less losers, diseased, and incompetent people will be born.

    And don't get me wrong I know that probably sounds insensitive itself. But really it would reduce the amount of suffering if useless people weren't born. I am a good example of this kind of useless person.
     
  19. lifeisashedog

    lifeisashedog Well-Known Member


    Education is the best way to decrease the population!

    Let us make such boring schools that that they will depress all the kids to the point of suicide before reaching fertility age.

    Problem solved!
     
  20. lifeisashedog

    lifeisashedog Well-Known Member

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.