Ways to deal with overpopulation
- Thread starter noobium
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's pretty obvious isn't it? It's probably already been said before but restrict breeding, hell reduce sex altogether. You stupid humans need to learn to control yourselves anyway. Also another world war, absolute world war, everyone at each others throats. That will reduce the numbers very quickly. Civilian casualties? Bah no such thing, everyone is a target.
But fact remains. You humans need to learn to control yourselves, as it stands you people rival that of ancient times, very little has changed since then. And also war. Long over due for a proper earth changing war.
But fact remains. You humans need to learn to control yourselves, as it stands you people rival that of ancient times, very little has changed since then. And also war. Long over due for a proper earth changing war.
Eh, the geometric way isn't taught in my school (new zealand, for the record), so we use the arithmetic way because "a thousand millions" just sounds awkward and redudant. So we have 10^9 for billion, 10^12 for trillion, 10^15 for quadrillion etc.Abandon4093 said:
And this is how the winnars roll. I love how everyone's talking about colonising mars. Because of course we're still not over populated so there's no point doing that..Supertegwyn said:
Incentives, though it won't work on its own. Stop rewarding people with a tax break for having children. I know people who have offered for me to "claim" their child on my taxes so I could recoup thousands of dollars that did not belong to me (I said no). Instead, reward families who adopt children. Give tax breaks to people who purchase a certain amount of contraceptives a year. Persuade the Catholic church to reverse its stance on contraception.noobium said:
Also: terraforming. Neil Armstrong is right about NASA.
lol, pick up a book.AngryMongoose said:
Fact: We have an aging population.
Fact: This means in 40-50 years, there will be fewer people in America, Europe and most developed countries than there are now.
Fact: There is not a shortage of food, but inability to provide existing food to those who need it.
Fact: Aside from places like China, or where the population doesn't have access to birth control methods, people are NOT screwing like rabbits unprotected. They're choosing when to have kids, and most people are going with 1-2, like you said.
Opinion: The 1-child rule doesn't work. It's really screwing up Chinese culture, too. Everyone wants sons->nobody wants daughters->infanticide/other injustices->not enough chinese women around, etc.
To everyone (not the guy I quoted): I know it's easy to look at "overpopulation" and have a knee-jerk smug reaction because nerds can't get laid or whatever reason, but the hatred that streams out of some of these contents really should get modded. Don't advocate the death of millions if you don't feel comfortable committing suicide right now. It feels hypocritical. We all have a right to live, and social darwinism is a TERRIBLE concept that gave rise to some of the worst social injustices in 20th-century America.
Oh really? Which people should we target first? >_> Isn't this just murdering people in an indirect way?Andrew Pate said:
Or you could stop trying out those incredibly wierd taxation laws where the middle- and lower classes (i.e the people with the least means) to pay the most taxes, but the higher classes (i.e the people with the ABSIOLUTE MOST means) pay less of a percentage.Deshara said:
You know, like a REASONABLE taxation system where the ones with the actual means to pay more get obligated to do so?
Yeah, because oppressive censorship just makes the world a better place in general, right? *facepalm*Samurai Goomba said:
Once again: insensitivity has nothing to do with it, so I don't really care how "insensitive" you might sound. It's just that claiming that "old people" are basically just a haemorrhage on society is a clear slippery slope towards the notion that somehow they "have to go".Abandon4093 said:
Now if we put that line of reasoning into practice, societal collapse would be pretty much a guarantee because no one would have any interest in working for a society that's basically just going to dump them (or severely reduce their already reduced quality of life) once they're too old to work.
It would rather be a case of where everyone is pulling in different directions (which would lead to exactly nothing constructive) as opposed to the current model where most people pull towards the same direction, although some people to old to pull get pulled by the younger ones.
So to summarize: the motivational factor of subsidised pensions are a reason in itself why it should be kept around, because without it we'd eventually not have much of a government (or society for that matter) to speak of.
There are plenty of both expensive and counter-productive "projects" that most governments indulge in, which also haemorrhage on society greatly that could do with some serious cut-backs (certain government defense budgets being one of them, especially when those "defense" budgets go to funding wars of aggression rather than any kind of "defense").
BUT if we reverse the steps, what would happen then?ChromaticWolfen said:
First the "killing off developing countries". It will gather huge media coverage and the general population will see just to what lengths the evil government will go to to reach it's goals. Dissenters will be treated harshly which will also garner media coverage. Some outcries might occurs with protests and the like, but the issue will most likely be ignored because the slaughter is simply something happening to "other people" in the minds of most citizens, even if they certainly learn the lesson that the government and it's military are CERTAINLY not organisations one would like to piss off.
Second, the "random killings" start occuring. The government can blame "national security reasons" if they like. Now people will most likely have a negative reaction to this, but with the government acting the way it did against developing countries fresh in memory, most citizens would've learned to fear the government and what it can do if you cross it. So the "rioting" would be much less minimal, and with the extreme violence used against rioters by the police, people would eventually call it a day and just accept that there's no stopping the coming police-state.
And finally, the government enacts birth control policies. And everyone will accept it because they have no desire whatsoever to cross a government capable of such brutality as the previous steps have shown.
Hehehe, given the motivation I'd be a rather excellent evil dictator. It's all a matter of timing and understanding of human psychology. >
To be honest, I had absolutely no idea that the term "billion" didn't mean the same thing everywhere. Regardless, after Wikipedia, I now know. I am, of course, biased to the American way - but I do feel like our "short" way allows you to better articulate in most situations. You will rarely have a situation where you would need to say "billion" if you were using the "long" way. Alternatively, the short billion comes up ALL the time. It is quicker to say 7 billion than 7 thousand million.Lukeje said: