Leaderboard

This is begging the question.

Growth rate has been slowing for decades https://www.statista.com/chart/28744/world-population-growth-timeline-and-forecast/

Well, ok then. If you were making a point about semantics I wish you had just said so, goddamit. 😀 I just figure a good faith discussion of how to reduce population is predicated on the assumption it is via lower birth rates achieved through various carrots and sticks. One stick that wouldn't be as coercive would be just to eliminate tax credits if you have more than, say, three children. That just says, we're not stopping you but bear in mind you are putting a disproportionate burden on various social infrastructures and resources. So you need to help pay for that. As others point out, doing this globally is not possible at the moment, as various ideologies and creeds of growth prevail, especially the mostly unexamined phobia that economic shrinkage is a fate worse than death.

No trolling, just trying to point out the obvious. Whenever the subject of overpopulation comes up, there is a chorus of people suggesting the need for population control. Control is a very specific word. It implies removing life or preventing it from starting. We all support education, eradication of poverty, destruction of patriarchal rules forcing women into motherhood, etc., but those are different things. They are NOT population control. They are progress accelerators with a side benefit of reduced birth rates. So, just say that. "I support progress accelerators that bring the side benefit of reduced births," not "part of the solution here must include population CONTROL." /pedant

Holy feck, did you just troll me? Dude, no one who advocates a set population for the planet is advocating people dying. This is about family planning and a demographic shift to smaller families being a viable choice and one that is rewarded. i.e. fewer new people being born. I'll thank you also to skip the forced sterilization strawman, too.

That tells you where the scattering event occurred. It doesn’t tell you the neutrino path, because you don’t know where the neutrino originated. You might estimate the angle, but how do you know the momentum of the neutrino? When I was a postdoc, we did an experiment where we knew where the originated, because they came from beta decay in a magneto-optic trap, so the source was localized to a small volume. We couldn’t detect them, though, but could deduce their momentum by detecting the beta, the daughter nucleus, and any orbital electrons that were ionized in the decay process, for decays where all the particles were co- or counter-propagating.

I don't think anyone needs to be sterilized. Many countries have already shown that simply by being prosperous (and the things that go along with that) is often enough to lead to population decline. Stopping lives from beginning can be achieved through global development. Not many people are opposed to their lives getting better.

What should we be doing that we are not already? I am all for education, healthcare and availability of contraception. And economic security and prosperity for all. All of which tend to lead, through providing enough freedom to do so, to choosing reduced family size. Population reduction other than by reduced birthrate and attrition over multiple generations across multiple nations seems especially problematic. Regulating which people can and can't have children and under what circumstances - rather than who lives and who gets murdered - has serious ethical as well as practical issues too. Education and encouragement is fine - let's do more where we can - but I am not convinced we should be trying regulation and enforcement. I think some of our more serious population related problems won't give the time for population reduction to help even if we could force it and I feel a sense of foreboding about that. An aside is I don't think global warming is primarily a population problem - I think it is a dirty energy problem and per capita emissions problem. Good governance is essential, yet the worse the external conditions the more likely it seems that we will get all that bad governance can give - blameshifting and divisiveness and conflict. Things going badly seems to enable and encourage exploitation and corruption; desperation leads to looking out for no.1 and life becoming a zero sum game and that is not conducive to good governance.

You might be looking at the wrong end of the life scale. Preventing lives from starting in the first place would be ethically easier to reduce the population. I think if we collectively wring our hands and reach a tipping point where Darwin rules increasingly, then this kind of discussion will be moot. The biggest, richest and meanest will prevail.

I don't assume that. I think the human population is underutilized, mismanaged, and kept barely above slavery in many parts of the world. I think the outrage of overpopulation is being manufactured by those who hoard resources and demean the labor of people. Rather than giving the resource hoarders more control over our reproduction, I'd like to try more cooperation and less competition, and try to distribute resources more efficiently and effectively for a larger percentage of the population. No more food rotting on docks because there's no profit in getting it to starving people, which will make them healthier and more able to continue their own prosperity. I'd like to start a cycle like that, because we know where the "overpopulation" cycle leads.

"theoretically possible" is a very speculative phrase. There is unlikely to be theory related to such a process, it's far too complicated to predict. To be precise, "early in the pregnancy" would mean after an egg has implanted itself, and commenced hooking up it's plumbing to the mother. In that case, it's highly unlikely to the point of impossible, that doctors would embark on removing that, and trying to reconnect it to a different mother. There would be dual problems of morality, and of doing it without fatally damaging the embryo and placenta. In vitro fertilisation, as posted above, is already happening. Another possibility for the future is the development of an artificial womb, capable of carrying an in-vitro fertilised egg all the way to a viable baby without ever being placed in a woman. There is work being done on that, but it's dragging because of religious and moral objections, as well as practicalities. But I have a feeling that it will be possible in the future, and might even become the normal way of making babies. It might start out as a way of breeding valuable livestock, and progress to human reproduction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogacy#Gestational_surrogacy

Exactly you're wrong and just trolling.

There wouldn't be any evidence with something like the Sun, that occurs progressively, coinciding with our lifestyles. 1) we aren't questioning it 2) it isn't an apparent threat 3) it wouldn't be apparent 4) at night, the sun is down, which would allow us to forget. 6) there's no incentive for someone to look into something that cannot first be identified. We aren't going to question the world we can comfortably live in. The ecosystem cannot be quantified 100%, as been the obvious notion...since someone looked. I looked up the ozone molecules, and that would be impossible. I'm wrong there, admittedly. One other thing I'd like to bring up and ask you guys about, is why my parents Mercury thermometer broke in the late 90's. If we look into real-feel, and ambient temperature... I think that could lead to something. If it is indeed different, more, or less solar radiation penetrating our atmosphere, then we would want to know that it's safe.

By the same logic, disease prevention and modern medicine and reduction of infant mortality are also population control, only upwards instead of downwards. In reality, you can influence the birthrate without also killing people. It IS possible to do one and not the other, even if that comes as a surprise to you. And it's likewise possible to have a falling population, and still prevent disease and provide medicine. I know it's complicated, but take my word for it, if it's confusing.

OKay, it goes in the trash. this place is for sociopaths anyway. have i met science? are you all retarded? Look at your comments. You are like Trump's offspring

-1 for irrelevance. You quoted half a line and took it out of context to troll a response that has no context to my original text, with no intent other than to derail my topic with graffiti. I mean if you read my post you'd realise the expansion is present in the wavelength of a photon. And if the photon wavelength is the ruler, and the wavelength has expanded, then the ruler has expanded.

So rulers do not expand. Great. So what?