Poll: Would you support a human Genophage?

[Negatempest]

I'm going to put in my 2 cents.

I look at it less as "Overpopulation" and more of "Some people don't deserve to be parents". I would be more than happy to put such a manipulation on certain spouses if they believe that they can have sexual intercourse as often as they want and never worry about conceiving a child into a family that would never love them.

To me, becoming a parent is more of a privilege than a right.

 

[Sporky111]

When did overpopulation become a problem? I don't remember widespread food shortages. We're not running out of space to farm or build cities. We're not cramped into communal housing. It's not like someone in a crowded city can't move somewhere else.

This is a stupid idea, we're not going to consume earth any time soon.

 

[KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life]

There are parts of the world that are underpopulated. The problem isn't humans having too many babies, it's that too many poor people in 3rd-5th World countries are having a boatload.

Maybe if we converted the Indians to Catholicism...

 

[Combustion Kevin]

it is simple:
lots of food left = many people get fed. note, many, not all.
little food left = few people get fed. note, few, not none.

ecosystems stablise over time eventually, mankind will suffer greatly if it comes to that but I have a hard time believing we will drive ourselves to extinction through starvation.
as such, the idea that we will "ruin the planet" seems kinda ridiculous to me, as George Carlin said it:

"The earth is fine, it's not going anywhere, WE ARE."

nuclear weapons on the other hand...

 

[Thyunda]

When did overpopulation become a problem? I don't remember widespread food shortages. We're not running out of space to farm or build cities. We're not cramped into communal housing. It's not like someone in a crowded city can't move somewhere else.

This is a stupid idea, we're not going to consume earth any time soon.

Overpopulation is a major problem. We've got more people than we can actually do anything with - hence the overly high unemployment levels and struggling businesses. The problem isn't that there isn't enough business, it's that there are too many people. And that's the very best of it. This doesn't include the mass starvation in third world countries. To deny overpopulation is to deny that fire is hot.

 

[xPixelatedx]

That is not the law of natural selection. Natural selection involves the selection of traits best suited to our environment. It simply is about adapting to our environment. You do not reintroduce it by changing the environment.

So what you are telling me is that if people lost all the things that we use to defy this law, we could still never be a part of it? What about future generations changing and adapting to this new environment we crated? Won't their traits be determined by who survives? I am pretty sure that's it right there, regardless of semantics. You can't say that, "it doesn't count if people had a hand in it at some point", because then you are basically saying nearly every animal on earth is no longer part of this law. Yet life is still going on and things are still based of who gets to pass their traits on.

 

[nathan-dts]

But what if we don't find the necessary resources on Mars? We won't find more food or water. At best materials to fuel our first world lifestyle.

No matter what we can convert things into energy which is the biggest problem we face.

Uh no, we can't convert everything into energy. Example: Dirt. Not all materials are useful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence

 

[Comando96]

It's not really a point of contention that there are (or soon will be) more humans than the planet can comfortably sustain.

[citation needed]

Seriously, this "overpopulation" hysteria is about as accurate and realistic as a Mayan apocalypse prediction. We've got, at a minimum, hundreds of generations before it would become a real concern--barring the very likely event of some sort of technological advancement that renders the point entirely moot. And either way, by then we'll have colonized other worlds.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/scientists-look-onethird-of-the-human-race-has-to,27166/

When we run out of oil (and we will) if we haven't got another energy source then oh dear. However, oil is used for 2 primary functions of survival.
Oil is used to make fertilisers that in turn helP grow ABNORMAL quanties of food.
Oil is used up transport this food around the planet for consumption.

Transport can be taken over by an electrical source... Hopefully... If the conversion is made that is.

Fertilisers contain oil... That cannot be replaced
When oil runs out, food production will fall... Therefore we lower population numbers or mass starvation and likely armed opposition and violence will lower the population to a suitable level.

We have a simple choice on the matter...
Do we do this in a controlled way?
Or do we give everyone a shotgun and let's all sort it out ourselves...

The first sounds better and more civilised >.>

I support a human style Genophage. 1 child policies are too hard to enforce and therefore must be done beyond our control or self restraint.

 

[Dimitriov]

NO. Absolutely not.

If, however, the 40% of you in favour want to sterilize yourselves and achieve it that way then I have no complaints.

 

[lacktheknack]

And yes, infertility sucks, but then so does bringing a child into a world of desperation and poverty.

There's two ways to fix that, one of which does not involve a genophage.

OT: No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. Just... no.

 

[Sporky111]

When did overpopulation become a problem? I don't remember widespread food shortages. We're not running out of space to farm or build cities. We're not cramped into communal housing. It's not like someone in a crowded city can't move somewhere else.

This is a stupid idea, we're not going to consume earth any time soon.

Overpopulation is a major problem. We've got more people than we can actually do anything with - hence the overly high unemployment levels and struggling businesses. The problem isn't that there isn't enough business, it's that there are too many people. And that's the very best of it. This doesn't include the mass starvation in third world countries. To deny overpopulation is to deny that fire is hot.

While I don't agree with what you're saying, I respect you for having Zee Captain as your avatar.

I maintain that overpopulation isn't the real problem, I think it comes down to money. It's not that we have too many people, it's that it's that there just aren't enough jobs being made for them. Billions of dollars are sitting in rich folk's bank accounts doing fuck-all, when that money could be invested or spent somewhere else. Invest in a business, invest in the government, do something humanitarian. The planet is sustainable, we sure don't need to start chemically castrating people. We just need to get the rich fuckers and governments doing their part instead of lining their own pockets.

Even then, I won't deny the mass starvation in third world countries. But that could still be helped with a more determined aid program from the wealthier nations of the world. These countries could be developed into self-sustainability, but not enough people out there can find the money to put forward.

 

[lacktheknack]

It's not really a point of contention that there are (or soon will be) more humans than the planet can comfortably sustain.

[citation needed]

Seriously, this "overpopulation" hysteria is about as accurate and realistic as a Mayan apocalypse prediction. We've got, at a minimum, hundreds of generations before it would become a real concern--barring the very likely event of some sort of technological advancement that renders the point entirely moot. And either way, by then we'll have colonized other worlds.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/scientists-look-onethird-of-the-human-race-has-to,27166/

You... cited... the Onion...

You're amazing, man. I didn't think people fell for that any more.

Also, having the Onion as your first citation says very bad things about overpopulation being a problem.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Zach Weiner knows the solution to the crisis. Also a brilliant webcomic. http://www.smbc-comics.com

Spoiler: SMBC WILL SHOW US THE WAY

... I like any plan that results in impromptu orgies. ^^

Ahem.

OT: I think the problem is that no one wants to be the one in three.

I think I'd prefer something like what China does - two children per couple (or, to be fair to single parents and the more fluid marriage arrangements of modern society, one child per person). That way the population is held steady, but not increasing.

The issue, of course, is that all nations would have to agree to this - and all nations have never agreed on anything, ever.

Anyway, I plan to do my part - after I have a second child, I'm getting my tubes tied. Hell, since my family has a history with Uteran cancer, I might go for a preemptive hysterectomy. I can't get cancer in an organ I no longer have - and I can't get pregnant again either. Two birds etc.

Getting a little off topic here.

As far as the Genophage goes - how about something that doesn't cause infertility, but something that simply lowers fertility rates? Like... say a virus that caused a woman to ovulate only once every two months (instead of once a month)? That would halve the chance of any given sexual act being procreative. However, for those trying, it wouldn't be hard to track when the ovulation would occur, so individuals having difficulties with fertility wouldn't have their chances lowered (they'd just have to wait longer between attempts).

Oh, and if it could also make us only have periods once every two months... that would be fucking awesome.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

While controlling the overall population growth would probably be a good thing...There is NO WAY to do so without being biased, or without making people THINK you're biased. Even if you have a perfect and fair system, there will always be people who will be upset at the system and who will strike at it.

It would not work. It just wouldn't.

On a side note, though, It would be neat to not have to worry about needing contraceptives while having sex, if the system was implemented not too differently from the Combine's system (Half life 2)

Limiting the numbers of birth is a good idea, but I think China has the right idea. Give them a choice to get a second kid, but make sure they can afford to pay extra for it. Reducing fertility is not the way. Increasing level of education and welfare will in time reduce the birthrates and it could possibly improve our agriculture making it possible to feed more people.

Ok THIS is a good idea.

But the problem is...well...Humanity (in general) is stupid.

There are people who don't WANT to be educated, and don't WANT their kids to be educated, and who think that any social welfare systems are evil, and WANT to have 5 kids they can't support (and then demand the state help them pay for them), while claiming that birth control is the devil.

I don't see how you're going to convince those people to follow/support these rules. They will get mad. They will cry foul. They will raise holy hell over it.

 

[Iron Criterion]

The human race is my main concern, and to put it bluntly it should be yours too. If I had to choose between inflicting a genophage on humanity and driving 90% of the other current forms of life on the planet to extinction (though I see no reason to believe that it would ever come to that), I wouldn't think twice. My own species is my priority.

Stopped reading at the mention of choosing the extinction of 90% of the other species. Don't you understand the concept of an ecosystem?