Does it bother you at all that we are overpopulating the Earth?

[demoman_chaos]

I think there are quite a few people we could get rid of. The ones that are doing nothing for us, like the ones in nursing homes that are not but a burden. Killing everyone with AIDS would be a great way to kill AIDS off almost entirely. Certain genetic diseases could be taken care off with testing and slaying.
It would benefit humanity greatly to get rid of those unfit to live. Bring back natural selection.

 

[Serving UpSmiles]

Anywho, how do you think we could go about resolving this issue and if your government initiated a single child policy tomorrow for example, would it bother you at all?

Yes it would bother me because overpopulation is not the issue. After all, the growth rate of the world is slowing down. The major problem our society currently faces is over-consumption, one that few people seem to really acknowledge. Many of us consume a horribly large amount of resources, far more than is actually necessary. If people were more conscious of the amount they consume over trivial things then I believe we wouldn't be wasting nearly as many resources. Overpopulation only becomes an issue when all those people squander resources in the same overly-extravagant lifestyle far to many people in first world countries enjoy.

Quite possibly one of the dumbest things I have seen recently. Birds don't use more materials than they need. Humans in general consume far more than is necessary. We are needlessly wasteful.

EDIT: Seriously people, most of the births in the world take place in third world countries. Yet these countries consume far less than us. The main problem is over-consumption. Don't pretend you're part of the solution just because you don't have children.

The Earth is perfectly capable to support a MUCH bigger population than now. That said, I personally think reproduction should be a privelege, not a right. You need a license to drive a car, but not to CREATE AND CARE FOR A SENTIENT BEING. That just doesn't sit right with me. Abortion shouldn't be legal; it should be compulsory. Unless you pass a test just as rigorious as the ones prospective adoptive parents have to pass.

So you want to let the government control reproduction, a basic human right, and let them determine who is fit to breed based on a criteria they create. Hooray for eugenics

Also forced abortion is one of the most disgusting things I have ever heard.

Don't they do that in China?

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

There are plenty of resources and space if we build up. The problem is bad resource management, not using resources sustainably, not using sustainable material(ie we need a plastic substitute), better allocation and distribution of resources. Also can people stop using the term save the planet when it comes to anything like this or the environment. Planet Earth will still be here after all plant life and human life etc is gone. It makes people seem like hippies to say it that way and it doesn't hit home properly. It is not the Earth we are saving it is us and our food. So if you like your bacon you know what to do.

Trouble is, some people will dismiss you as a "hippie" if you say anything about resource management or sustainability.

That said: bacon? I'd like to say that the answer is farming kunekune pigs, since they grow fast and can live on grass and table scraps. But there are some issues with that breed right off the bat: They're small (not much pork there) and they're docile and cute (people might end up making pets out of them instead of eating them).

So...we may have to start experimenting with cloned tissue.

 

[Aurgelmir]

I think most people aspire to have kids at some point in our life, but as innocent an aspiration it may be, its having a detrimental impact on the Earth and our living standards. Whether we like it or not, we are having more babies then dying, all the while trying to find ways to live longer, to have more kids...who is feeding all those children? I suppose our generation doesn't need to care that much because it isn't effecting us, but what about our grandchildren? We as the human race have destroyed quite a bit of what keeps us living, so I'm led to wonder at which point we will get so desperate to live that even the remainder of that is destroyed as well.

Anywho, how do you think we could go about resolving this issue and if your government initiated a single child policy tomorrow for example, would it bother you at all?

Considering a lot of people native to their respective Industrial countries tend to have fewer children these days, I wouldn't put the nails in the coffin yet.

Sadly a lot of Developing countries, and immigrants from those countries continue the tradition of having a lot of children. This was a trend Europe and the US used to have back in the day too.

But consider if every family in the world only had ONE child each. Well then the population would decline... but is that possible to achieve on a large scale?

 

[Halceon]

Are we? Really? Last I checked, there were immense areas of land that are completely uninhabited, unworked and even unvisited. We also produce way more food than the entire population can eat, it's just not well distributed. Also, large birthrates are usually correlated with low standarts of living, while the better developed nations are getting older.

If we need to worry about something, then it's the fact that life extension is progressing wya faster than livelihood extension.

 

[EHKOS]

Yes, in fact people look down on me because I say we need to thin the herd a bit. I don't care, I'm going to take the Ayn Rand track (hehe get it?) and say that it wouldn't be terrible to stop having kids.

 

[pulse2]

Are we? Really? Last I checked, there were immense areas of land that are completely uninhabited, unworked and even unvisited. We also produce way more food than the entire population can eat, it's just not well distributed. Also, large birthrates are usually correlated with low standarts of living, while the better developed nations are getting older.

If we need to worry about something, then it's the fact that life extension is progressing wya faster than livelihood extension.

I agree, there are, but those are not the places people want to live, lol, one might ask, why are so many people crammed into New York when there are so many places around America they could live, or why there are more people living in London alone compared to most of the England.

People like to live where most of the resources and things they like are. Its the same case for why more people don't live in Antarctica or the outbacks of Austrailia . Why move there when I could live somewhere less hostile, easier to get basic resources and where I can raise my lots of children better, lol.

I think most people aspire to have kids at some point in our life, but as innocent an aspiration it may be, its having a detrimental impact on the Earth and our living standards. Whether we like it or not, we are having more babies then dying, all the while trying to find ways to live longer, to have more kids...who is feeding all those children? I suppose our generation doesn't need to care that much because it isn't effecting us, but what about our grandchildren? We as the human race have destroyed quite a bit of what keeps us living, so I'm led to wonder at which point we will get so desperate to live that even the remainder of that is destroyed as well.

Anywho, how do you think we could go about resolving this issue and if your government initiated a single child policy tomorrow for example, would it bother you at all?

Considering a lot of people native to their respective Industrial countries tend to have fewer children these days, I wouldn't put the nails in the coffin yet.

Sadly a lot of Developing countries, and immigrants from those countries continue the tradition of having a lot of children. This was a trend Europe and the US used to have back in the day too.

But consider if every family in the world only had ONE child each. Well then the population would decline... but is that possible to achieve on a large scale?

Agreed on the poverty point, I was looking at a show on TV the other day, it was mainly about unhealthy eating in Argentina, but I was more shocked at the fact this woman had 14 kids and they were living in what could only be referred to as a shack, how she managed to support them all is beyond me. Now if that was to happen in London, we'd call it outrageous and get annoyed that we have to support that number of kids via benefits from our taxes.

 

[babinro]

Overpopulation bothers me in the same way that our problems with oil dependency and fresh water shortage does. These are huge problems that we will likely only seriously address after it's way way too late (someone could argue that it is too late to safely address these issues already). I feel the country I live in (Canada) is doing far too little about these issues simply because they are so large in scale and because the immediate threat does not yet exist here.

I'm entirely in favor of a one child per family law. Families who want more than one child could either adopt without penalty...or have another child given the appropriate tax penalty. The idea would be to limit multi-children households to those families that can provide a proper upbringing and environment for them. For example, if a family wanted a second child they would have to pay the government a deposit of $250,000 dollars. In addition to this, their tax rate would increase to help cover the additional resources their child burdens on society until 18.

In theory at least, upper class families would populate the world with more kids who are more likely to afford proper schooling and have a much greater chance of contributing to society better than the lower class. At least that's my opinion (coming from someone living below poverty level for what it's worth).

 

[DSK-]

If and when this ever happens I will most likely be dead *puts shades on*

But in all seriousness, nothing will get done until it becomes financially and technologically viable to settle in other, less accessible areas.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

It's immoral to have a child in today's society. We can't force people to have just one child, that would break their fundamental human rights. What we can do is encourage adoption. We can't sway the current generation but we sure as hell can sway the next.

 

[Jessta]

Yes, when I can't avoid thinking about it. Especially when I used to read the doctor who novels. There was one set in the 22nd century and even genetically engineered crops couldn't be distributed evenly. The one thing that makes me feel better is that Stephen Hawking said we need to colonize other worlds within the next 200 years, so that's the beginning of considering it a valid option.

I call forth the international protocol of DIBS ON SATURN!!!!

That's right bitches I got them rings

But Saturn is a gas giant...
Ahem, if we were to consider population control it might be a good idea to start by not paying people to have children... I know three single mothers who pay shit for attention to their children who are proud to have 4+ children and have 'making babies' as their profession because it pays better than most full time jobs and it gets them people to work on their house after they are done dumping them off on others.

 

[MasterChief892039]

But consider if every family in the world only had ONE child each. Well then the population would decline... but is that possible to achieve on a large scale?

Sex education does wonders.

 

[Amarok]

I heard from a source I can't be bothered to find again that the population boom is slowing now and by 2080 it's going to cap off at 9 Billion (sustainable) and stay that way.

I'm always inclined to agree with optimistic science at a moment's notice, therefore this is indisputable fact.

 

[omega 616]

I think most people aspire to have kids at some point in our life, but as innocent an aspiration it may be, its having a detrimental impact on the Earth and our living standards. Whether we like it or not, we are having more babies then dying, all the while trying to find ways to live longer, to have more kids...who is feeding all those children? I suppose our generation doesn't need to care that much because it isn't effecting us, but what about our grandchildren? We as the human race have destroyed quite a bit of what keeps us living, so I'm led to wonder at which point we will get so desperate to live that even the remainder of that is destroyed as well.

Anywho, how do you think we could go about resolving this issue and if your government initiated a single child policy tomorrow for example, would it bother you at all?

I asked this to somebody and just got lauged at for it.

We live in a "I don't care" age, where nobody (hyperbole obviously) is willing to take responability for there actions. It's "I want 5 kids and you can't stop me!" attitude.

How would the single child policy work? One child per couple? What about break ups? If you have one kid are you allowed no more till that one dies? Is it one child per person?

To be honest the only way I see the third world ending is when Europe, USA etc etc etc get full, they will move to places like Africa and the like but we won't go from first class life styles to shitting in the street and drinking brown water.

There would also be back lash from people who will spout "it's our basic human rights to have children. Even animals are allowed that", of course not stopping to think about how were clubbing seals or enforcing population control.

I think were going to be our own undoing in terms of over populating the earth 'cos nobody gives a shit about others ... most don't care about themselves (lets see how drunk/fat I can get).

 

[pulse2]

I think most people aspire to have kids at some point in our life, but as innocent an aspiration it may be, its having a detrimental impact on the Earth and our living standards. Whether we like it or not, we are having more babies then dying, all the while trying to find ways to live longer, to have more kids...who is feeding all those children? I suppose our generation doesn't need to care that much because it isn't effecting us, but what about our grandchildren? We as the human race have destroyed quite a bit of what keeps us living, so I'm led to wonder at which point we will get so desperate to live that even the remainder of that is destroyed as well.

Anywho, how do you think we could go about resolving this issue and if your government initiated a single child policy tomorrow for example, would it bother you at all?

It's estimated that, at our current technological rates the earth can sustain 11 Billion people, a figure we're still someway off reaching. Sadly this doesn't translate straight from paper, poor distribution means some places (such as Africa / S.Asia) suffer from famine while others (Europe / N.America) enjoy a surplus.

Despite that we are still a long way off 'overpopulating' the planet. By the time our population reaches that point we'll probably have better technology.

Valued point, but who gets access to that technology? Certainly not the third world contries and they are giving birth the most.

The thing is, they have more children to support themselves as more children = more chance at survival. The chance that at least one of those children will grow up and be something is a risk worth taking.

That and the fact the contraception isn't common in third world contries as it is not easy to obtain and cheap to buy.

But consider if every family in the world only had ONE child each. Well then the population would decline... but is that possible to achieve on a large scale?

Sex education does wonders.

Lol, I only wish that mentality was instilled here in the UK, underaged birth rates are highest in the EU ¬_¬

 

[rutger5000]

Nope not worried, but that is mostly because I don't give a flyings rat ass about the world of tomorrow. I'm a kind fellow always helping people out and such, but deep down I'm amongst the most selfish bastards ever to walk the earth.

 

[Aurgelmir]

But consider if every family in the world only had ONE child each. Well then the population would decline... but is that possible to achieve on a large scale?

Sex education does wonders.

Yeah done wonders for AIDS in Africa... problem is that the education is already horrible in the countries that would need it the most

 

[OldRat]

It doesn't bother me, since it's not me, or anyone in this country, doing it. On average, Europe has a declining population trend. So if anything, we need to make more children.

Third world countries are the problem. Things are (slowly) getting better there and child mortality rate is (slowly) going down, but they're still very much in the mindset that unless you spawn as many children as possible, none might live to see adulthood.
That and the fact that many of them really don't know how to use even the contraception they get from aid efforts. My biology and geology teacher's wife worked there, and she told some pretty worrying stories. For example, given contraceptive pills and explained that the women should take them to prevent pregnancies, the men of the village held council and decided it'd be more effective if they took the pills instead. For some reason. And many just use the condoms to carry water.

So yeah, education is what's needed. It has been generally found to be the most effective way.

 

[oreopizza47]

My theory.

Yes overpopulation is a problem. Yes I wish I could do something about it. No I'm not going to off myself or anyone else around me to decrease the population a little bit. So overall? Meh.