Jump to content

How to fix overpopulation?


ModernArtist25
 Share

Recommended Posts

Not if you consider each person individually, Phi.

Its not cheap to raise a child if you don't consider the contributions from parents.

A baby/child/young adult, before they reach their 'productive/contributing stage', might be more expensive than a retired person.

It is always 40 people contributing/supporting 85 people.

 

I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but having more people of a working age would definitely help, and that is a reason for immigration policies in the Western world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree there is a strong correlation with education. Availability of affordable contraception, especially to women independent of husbandly permission would be a big factor. Dramatic change to birthrate can have awkward consequences down the line though.

 

re China, the skewing towards boys over girls seems likely to create an enduring influence towards lower birth rates, even though the one child rule looks like it's being relaxed. Has that imbalance been advantageous to the girls or made them more vulnerable?

 

How high populations, raised on unsustainable foundations, interacts with the upcoming impacts of global climate change, with it's high potential for exacerbating droughts, floods, coastal inundation looks very worrisome. I suspect refugee issues will only grow - and they won't only be about crossing international borders; movements within nations will raise tensions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With 30M males more than females, the women can have their choice. Maybe more of them will practice polyamory.

 

Maybe they have greater choice, but perhaps they suffer more harassment, greater likelihood of rape or be more at the mercy of macho competitiveness, where the alpha male gets - by intimidation of other men, the women and their family - the girl he wants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By what method. Take excess babies away from parents, sterilize people after they have allotted number of babies, kill excess babies, OR?

no I think by giving people acsess to birth control and giving abortion as an option to people who want it. education might help too but its costly and Im not sure if it will be worth the money.

 

It seems so wasteful to kill the excess babies, especially since the vegans won't let us eat them....

thats crazy would you really kill and eat babies if it was allowed?!! That is terrible!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if there is education for all but overpopulation is still continuing, will that still help?

 

 

In most parts of the world the birth rate has fallen below that needed to increase the population. That is why most models predict that the world's population will peak before the end of the century and then start falling.

Hans Rosling's talks on this are always good value: http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

education might help too but its costly and Im not sure if it will be worth the money.

Without education we would be unable to survive. Before our ancestors learned to use fire and flint, education played an essential role; all primate mothers teach their children what to eat. Then someone discovered fire and invented flint napping. Today we learn to read an write, have discovered quantum mechanics and developed computer technology.

 

Since we cannot predict the future, we need to learn as much as possible to improve our probability of survival. Education may be expensive, but without it our culture would fail. On the other hand, we do need to reduce the cost of education, or more accurately the cost of a degree. A low cost education is available on the internet. Unfortunately, companies want people with degrees to fill job positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without education we would be unable to survive. Before our ancestors learned to use fire and flint, education played an essential role; all primate mothers teach their children what to eat. Then someone discovered fire and invented flint napping. Today we learn to read an write, have discovered quantum mechanics and developed computer technology.

 

Since we cannot predict the future, we need to learn as much as possible to improve our probability of survival. Education may be expensive, but without it our culture would fail. On the other hand, we do need to reduce the cost of education, or more accurately the cost of a degree. A low cost education is available on the internet. Unfortunately, companies want people with degrees to fill job positions.

I know education is good for humanity and i think in many places we already have good education. I support the idea of educating everyone. why is it unfortunete that companies want people with degrees to fulfill jobs? I want people with degrees to work too. I would rather have a teacher with a degree teach me then one without one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is unfortunate for a poor genius in the US who cannot afford to attend a university. Some countries provide a free university education.

I dont think free education is a good idea, at least have it be low cost.

I think we should focus more on what kind of education, what about. I think the key is good health education, in my state where i went to school they taught us to be abstinant. They showed us contraception in health,all the possible forms of contriseption. thats all they did.on one hand its good to teach to be abstinent because thats what they should be but i woulnt focus on the abstenancy i would focus on how bad being pregnant would be. I think they should have focused more on talking about pregnancy and appeal more to emotion. I mean they did say that if you do it dont get pregnant. the way they taught it was just informative it did not interest students to listen and they would glaze over the information just like they did in other classes. I dont know the best way to teach this topic but I would try to get students interested and wanting to listen and focus on how bad it would be to be pregnant in school. I dont know if this would prevent students from having sex but i think if its not talked about enough it's less helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a girl, whose parents are homeless and cannot pay for her education, should be ignorant for life, and, according to statistics she would have many children. Tell me why it is important to pay for education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not if you consider each person individually, Phi.

Its not cheap to raise a child if you don't consider the contributions from parents.

 

I was convinced we were talking specifically about government support, and the difference between how much it takes in the first 25 years as opposed to how much it takes in the last 20.

thats crazy would you really kill and eat babies if it was allowed?!! That is terrible!!

 

We're exploring ways to fix overpopulation. Perhaps "eating excess babies" can be part of Plan B? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

People need to be educated about the dangers of overpopulation. All other social problems and environmental degradation are compounded by larger and larger numbers of people. We are trying to avoid a catastrophic population decline in favor of a gradual reduction in growth until negative growth is achieved. Then the world's population can be gradually reduced to an optimal level determined scientifically and maintained there until population needs to grow again. A nuclear war is the quickest way to population reduction. MAD (mutually assured destruction) is no longer totally operative in a world were a nuclear terrorist has disregard for all human life including their own, the "kill 'em all and let God sort them out" attitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watch Star Trek, season 1 episode 23, "A taste of Armageddon". A lottery where "winners" are eliminated in disintegration booths. The population problem would be solved quickly. The only question is how low should we go?

Edited by waitforufo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A scientific definition of overpopulation would be difficult, and is unlikely to be adopted by all. I think we need to work towards accommodating the entire population, regardless of how big it gets. Moreover, I believe most of the Earth can be saved for nature reserves or mixed nature and farmed animals. If our population grows to 50B, enough to require heroic measures, we might create floating islands around the equator on the ocean. Storms are mild there. There is about 5 million meters over water at the equator. Farming 1000 km wide by 5000 km long could produce food for more than 6,000 million people. Currently about 60M km2 are farmed around the Earth and we are feeding 7,125 M people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a girl, whose parents are homeless and cannot pay for her education, should be ignorant for life, and, according to statistics she would have many children. Tell me why it is important to pay for education.

 

Absolutely.

 

Poor people even with free eduction for everybody could end up not educated.

As they have no money to survive and early have to go to work (or criminal activity) to even be able to fed them self.

 

Even more important is to get rid of money entirely.

Nobody pays for anything.

Nobody asks for money anyone.

Everybody do what is their responsibility: the best they can, work for society, using their brain or muscles, or both, if needed.

Everybody receive everything for free.

 

Currently pressure on society is made by money.

Somebody who is useless for society, get nothing back from society, and ends up with nothing, searching for food in garbage.

Target is money for such society.

 

Homeless (or even not literally homeless *): government can learn all these people how to make their own homes.

How to make bricks, how to work with concrete, how to cut metal sheets and rods, how to weld them, to make skeleton to be filled by concrete..

It's harder job to influence these people that they can do it by them self. They lost life goal. Their only goal is to find food in trashcan, and have money for cheap alcohol, eventually for drugs.

 

*) I bet somebody would prefer spending 3 months on construction site of his/her new home building (preferably as high as possible, to save ground area), rather than have to have 30+ years loan..

 

I watched TV document about US Amish, the whole village gathered one day, and built house for one of them, from wood.

Women were making meal in mean time. Nobody asked for money, nobody paid.

They knew when time come, they will do the same for him/her family, building yet another house, in return for helping them now.

That used to work for centuries, and thousands years ago.

 

It's unbelievable that you're talking about killing people, even in jokes, as a way to "fix overpopulation".

IMHO there is no overpopulation.

There is wrong target, wrong distribution of what is available.

Majority of people seeking for "richness", instead of dreaming f.e. about "endless life" (every single rich would swap with somebody living a day longer than he/she)

or doing something important for community..

 

Little target for couple years: Moon, Mars, the whole Solar System, then further in galaxy.

Instead of wasting life doing nothing.. Over and over, repeated by the next generations of people doing basically nothing..

Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That episode wasn't about overpopulation, Waitforufo.

 

It was about war.

The two planets at war had so 'sanitized' war ( computer simulated attacks and computer generated casualty list who must report to disintegration chambers ) that there was no incentive to stop and the war had lasted 800 yrs.

Roddenberry's message was that war SHOULD be terrible and brutal.

That would make it something to be considered only as a last resort.

 

( sorry for going OT, but I guess I'm a Trekkie )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That episode wasn't about overpopulation, Waitforufo.

 

It was about war.

The two planets at war had so 'sanitized' war ( computer simulated attacks and computer generated casualty list who must report to disintegration chambers ) that there was no incentive to stop and the war had lasted 800 yrs.

Roddenberry's message was that war SHOULD be terrible and brutal.

That would make it something to be considered only as a last resort.

 

( sorry for going OT, but I guess I'm a Trekkie )

Yes I understand it was for war, but the same system could be applied for the purpose of population control. Everyone is given a number at birth. Then once a year the population would be checked to determine if the population was above the magic number for sustainability. If it was above, numbers would be drawn and the "winners" would be disintegrated. Everyone would have the same odds for getting disintegrated so the system would be fair.

Edited by waitforufo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I understand it was for war, but the same system could be applied for the purpose of population control. Everyone is given a number at birth. Then once a year the population would be checked to determine if the population was above the magic number for sustainability. If it was above, numbers would be drawn and the "winners" would be disintegrated. Everyone would have the same odds for getting disintegrated so the system would be fair.

What about a fixed lifespan, a la Logan's Run, then pop them in the Carousel. Afterwards make some Soylent Green with the flash-fried remains which means they become recyclable. It won't be veal but mutton is better than nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think there is a solution without having the population decrease or stop raising so fast, then you obviously want to have a crowded earth. The best way to fix the problem? Drop the life expectancy, let survival of the fittest work.


A scientific definition of overpopulation would be difficult, and is unlikely to be adopted by all. I think we need to work towards accommodating the entire population, regardless of how big it gets. Moreover, I believe most of the Earth can be saved for nature reserves or mixed nature and farmed animals. If our population grows to 50B, enough to require heroic measures, we might create floating islands around the equator on the ocean. Storms are mild there. There is about 5 million meters over water at the equator. Farming 1000 km wide by 5000 km long could produce food for more than 6,000 million people. Currently about 60M km2 are farmed around the Earth and we are feeding 7,125 M people.

Well

Earth can only comfortably sustain 9 billion people.

Think about that. 50 billion people? That would make Earth uninhabitable. Ever thought about oxygen? Natural resources?

Do you want trees to be all for houses? Do you want "gods green earth" to be "gods concrete and polluted earth"

What about water? Are we going to purify it? How much energy would be used for that? We would have to destroy the ecosystem just so we can fit more of us? The earth doesn't just magically take CO2 out of the air. Scientists say overpopulation will be unsustainable at 10-11 billion people. They study is, a couple of 2 bits on SF won't look at the big picture. Humans don't just use food and water. We use oil, energy, metal, etc. In order to sustain even 20 billion people, we would probably have to throw away a lot. Computers, phones, all that fancy stuff that needs resources that just wouldn't be available in overpopulation.

What about AC or heaters? In overpopulation, the resources needed may not be available for ACs and heaters, which we NEED to survive in a lot of the places in the world.

Edited by TheNextTherory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think there is a solution without having the population decrease or stop raising so fast, then you obviously want to have a crowded earth. The best way to fix the problem? Drop the life expectancy, let survival of the fittest work.

 

This is the way it will likely pan out, the hard way, because nobody wants to play God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about a fixed lifespan, a la Logan's Run, then pop them in the Carousel. Afterwards make some Soylent Green with the flash-fried remains which means they become recyclable. It won't be veal but mutton is better than nothing.

 

No, just educate people in the social advantages and tax advantages of having fewer children. Easy and simple solution, nobody gets liquidated.

A scientific definition of overpopulation would be difficult, and is unlikely to be adopted by all. I think we need to work towards accommodating the entire population, regardless of how big it gets. Moreover, I believe most of the Earth can be saved for nature reserves or mixed nature and farmed animals. If our population grows to 50B, enough to require heroic measures, we might create floating islands around the equator on the ocean. Storms are mild there. There is about 5 million meters over water at the equator. Farming 1000 km wide by 5000 km long could produce food for more than 6,000 million people. Currently about 60M km2 are farmed around the Earth and we are feeding 7,125 M people.

 

Scientific definition is "carrying capacity". See Wikipedia.

 

"Work towards accommodating...regardless of how big it gets...50B....." is an absurd notion. Environmental pressures will surely be triggered at a sufficiently large population. Better to simply make the advantages of a smaller world population, along with global warming and other environmental degradations painfully obvious to everyone through education. Then people themselves will make a reasonable choice.

Edited by Airbrush
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.