So the US population hit 300 million.. and i need your thoughts on it..

[jake42]

I prefer the more Natural Selectionist route. There is a threshold called carrying capacity that is eventually met by every populaton. After that point there are not enough resources for all to continue to feed and reproduce. Too many individuals, not enough food equals hunger and death, the strongest survive. Sounds nasty, but it works in every other population out there from trees to jellyfish, so why not us?

A second scenario is the next big plague. 1918 wasn't that long ago. The Spanish flu strain that caused that pandemic killed 25 people worldwide. Think about it. That virus killed that many people when the population of the earth was maybe 3 billion or 4 billion and that was before airline travel. 

Jake

[Egaeus]

I've been dreaming of a virus that infects people who carry the "God Gene," but I don't think the technology is there yet.... 

[makenzie71]

300 million is great...of course I can think of better numbers to use in my "ask everyone for a dollar" compaign but HEY!  I'll take what I can get.

[Egaeus]

I prefer the more Natural Selectionist route. There is a threshold called carrying capacity that is eventually met by every populaton. After that point there are not enough resources for all to continue to feed and reproduce. Too many individuals, not enough food equals hunger and death, the strongest survive. Sounds nasty, but it works in every other population out there from trees to jellyfish, so why not us?

A second scenario is the next big plague. 1918 wasn't that long ago. The Spanish flu strain that caused that pandemic killed 25 people worldwide. Think about it. That virus killed that many people when the population of the earth was maybe 3 billion or 4 billion and that was before airline travel. 

Jake

The main problem with The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life is that humans are way too good at survival.  Before they hit the ceiling, they'd wipe out the rest of the Earth. 

I like my theory.  That way, the poor and dumb would eliminate themselves from the gene pool, and they'd quit being breeders.  The world, on average, is going to get dumber.  The intelligent people have learned to use birth control and have a kid or two.  The mouth-breathing breeders are out there popping out a kid every year or so because someone tells them that birth control is bad, it doesn't work, or it doesn't feel good and they believe it.  The average intelligence will go down and the world will be overrun with dullards.  My pay scheme can help prevent that.

[yamahonkawazuki]

well jake we can eat rabbits. but im assuming eating children is illegal sooooo, i liked verts original post as well

[jake42]

AH man I just read somewhere yesterday that one of the leading evolutonary biologists has proposed that at some point we are going to evolve into two separate species. One will be symmetrical, pretty and intelligent and the other will be dumpy, ugly and dumb.

I also have an observation for you all. 
My wife and I live in a blue collar, working class neighborhood. On our street are 5 carpenter/contractors, a guy who works for the gas company, a garbage man, a police officer and my wife and myself who are both working towards our doctorates. NOw the guy across the street is married to this piece of work. She is 36 and has three kids to three different daddies with the oldest going on 20., Down the street is this woman who is our age (early 30's) who now has 4 kids to three different daddies. Here's my observation. I swear it must be a genetic thing that when trashy women like these have kids, they are back to wearing mini-skirts and being a size 4 within a month after giving birth. The one down the street just had her 4th kid like two months ago and a couple weeks ago we were standing outside talking and she comes out to get in her car and my wife asked her if she was going to work the street corner (which is one reason I love my wife so much). She had on a mini skirt up her ass and f%$k me boots. You would have never known she even had a kid.  The woman across the street is essentially the same way. A month after her kid was born she was back to wearing tank tops and no bras and you'd never know she had just popped out a kid.  So I have  to wonder if there is a selective advantage going on for women like these to just keep breeding.  If so, we're all in trouble because if these two are any indication of the direction of the future, I'd like to start putting birth control in the water supply.

Jake

[Jake D]

Well, my original goal was to get Old Man Wilson to talk about rabbits.  I failed again.
Well, I guess I'll just go back to being symmetrical. 

[pandy]

There are a lot of good ideas here.... I rather like the one where $10k is paid for sterilization. I'd get in line! (Nope, I'm not popping our any more brats, but I'd collect my 10K!  ).

I don't see a real solution or compromise happening when we have right-to-lifers and religious folks running the government and chipping away at pro-choice laws, no offense to those who are religious or who are anti-abortion.

I'm not religious, so I'm all for birth control. In our neighborhood, 90% of the families you see walking down the street have four or five children clingin' to mama, and mama is ready to pop again.  I am not exaggerating.

I don't believe in having more children than I can afford, and I sure as heck couldn't afford to have 5 or 6+ children in this day and age.

Realistic options? More education in regards to birth control, and more access to termination of unwanted pregnancies. This isn't a problem for me, because I believe in birth control, I believe in bringing wanted children into the world, and I believe that life doesn't begin until the fetus has been expelled from the uterus (can you tell I'm not religious? ).

Unrealistic options: $10k per sterilization, pass laws controlling the # of children folks can have, placing children up for adoption if parents can't afford them rather than paying out welfare, licensing people before they can become parents (neither my adoptive parents nor my natural parents would have been licensed, so that would be 4 less screwed up kids right there!  ..oh...wait...the state gave us to our adoptive parents....nm...)

[blue05twin]

There are a lot of good ideas here.... I rather like the one where $10k is paid for sterilization. I'd get in line! (Nope, I'm not popping our any more brats, but I'd collect my 10K!  ).

  I just heard this comercial on the way to work this morning.  Company is paying 6K for fertile egg donations.  Not sure how that really works.  You walk in, they take an egg, cut you check for 6K?

Just think in two visits you could buy a brand new bike.

[Alphamazing]

Realistic options? More education in regards to birth control

Here in Texas, all mention of any form of contraceptive was removed from Health class textbooks.

[Old Mr. Wilson]

Of course there is gonna have to be "forced labor" for those that don't "wanna work".
And if it's raining or there is "no work" today, then you'll "sit under OUR shadetree" and on
"OUR bench", until there is work for you. Don't like it? Don't like it soooooo much that you'll
riot? Exellent! Another problem solved! Riots are an EXELLENT way to get rid of "undesirables". But one thing is for certain. You parasites are GOING to WORK.......one way or another. You scream in your pulpits about Jesus but don't want to hit a "lick at a snake". You believe in Jesus? Well..........you're gonna get a chance to meet him a lot sooner than you think.
More to come. Gonna turn in. Not a lot or trick or treaters tonite. 4:30 comes early. Later, my brothers and sisters.

[Cal Price]

In Britain we have about a fifth of your population in an area slightly smaller than Oregon, we produce about 50% of our own food but could produce a lot more, we could manage without food imports but a lot of things would dissapear from the shelves. Given the varied climatic conditions of the US it will be a long long time before you have to worry about that aspect of things.

Despite amuch higher population density we still have large virtually empty areas.

A great deal of Europe, including catholic Italy, have falling or stable populations, this means initially we have an ageing population and the "Demographic time bomb" of not enough young people to pay or care for the old. What is actually happening is that we are sucking in younger workers from other countries, mainly eastern Europe, some legallly and some not. This is filling out demographic and skills gap but is shifting that problem to Poland, Hungary etc,. As far as i can see a fair part of the US population increase is accountable to inward immigration. (some legal and desirable and some not)

We also have a strange situation in that a lot of my "boomer" generation are leaving britain to live in the warmer climes of the Medditeranean countries. So in fact things are not quite what the "demographic time-bombers" were so worried about.
yes we are going to have to change the way we work etc, and possibly work longer to offset better pensions etc but it all looks manageable.

China has a grip on it's birth rate with the "One child" rule, could they keep this up if and when totalitarianism collapses we shall have to wait and see.

So the immediate (20 year) worry is not lack of space or food but carbon-cycle pollution and using up the finite fuels of the planet. A person in US causes five tomes the global average pollution, a western European three times the average, India China, SE Asia and Brazi have big populations and are axpanding fast and are not going to like us lot telling them not to do this that and the other when we have already done it.

A recent UK govt report, described by our prime Minister as the most important document to land on his desk since he came to power in 1997 has set out what we have to do, it acknowledges that we (Europeans) have to get India, China and the U.S. involved as well. The report was written not by an environmentalist but a hard-headed economist and industrialist. His conclusion is that to tackle the problem now will cost 1% of the planets GDP and to leave it 20 years will cost 20%. The problem being Carbon use, Pollution and climate change.

The proposal is to shift all taxation to a green agenda, tax polluting industries more, tax hydrocarbons more, look at the way we charge for water (A big issue for us) use tax to change peoples travel habits targeting short-haul flights in particular and benefiting trains, tax the EMPTY seats on planes perhaps rather than the full ones?  In return reduce or end the tax burden elswhere. It is a sweeping proposal supported, oddly enough by all three major UK political parties and the smaller ones as well.

Tax breaks to renewable energy, that sort of thing. I am thinking of putting a simple 1kw wind genrator on my house and possibly solar pannels for water heating, on an average house this will reduce carbon-based energy use by 30-50%

We get the feeling that although the US government would not back this agenda the US people probably would. GB has said that such an agenda would stifle US growth, this has not been our experience, for the last ten years our economy has been growing well and has also become greener, exceeding Kyoto targets and setting ourselves new, more demandin ones.

it can be done, "Green Growth" of international industry is perfectly possible, some countries will need help, India is a good example but helping now will be much much cheaper than waiting.

Think about it, Arnie has.......Green men are not Girlie men...

[3imo]

Alright CAL!!   

That's more along the lines I was trying to explain.  At least some people are tryin to tackle the problem and not the symptom.

the world as a whole must work together to solve this problem. 
Forcing people to not have children is not the answer. Especially people who actually contribute to society.

[3imo]

Especially people who actually contribute to society.

Or as OMW put's it..."undesireables" or "parasites"

OMW I commend you for not throwing racial or stereotypical  labels on these "parasites"
I agree with you on those types of people to a degree. I guess.  But I would lean more towards educating "them" and working with "them", then with forced labor camps.

Was it Ben Franklin that said:
All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse.

God knows, these parasites come in all shapes, colors, religions, pedigree and creeds.

[Jake D]

3imo:
You missed one of Cal's main points: population control.  Didn't he recommend China continue it's One Child policy?

As for you, OMW:
I assume you plan on informing us all that we all have very little time left to live.  Our end will no doubt be brought on by some sort of cosmic event.  Likely a planet killing earth-bound heavenly object.  Or powerful streams of cosmic matter thrown from the center of a feasting black hole at the center of the Milky Way.  With regard to either possibility, I'd have to agree with you.
How did John put it: "Keep on fiddling while Rome burns."

[3imo]

I don't think I did.
He said "China has a grip on it's birth rate with the "One child" rule, could they keep this up if and when totalitarianism collapses we shall have to wait and see."


I wouldn't take that statement as a "recommendation".  I think he means to question their tactics. "could they keep this up?"

China's whole look on society and how they treat their people is f%&ked up and will fall the way the U.S.S.R did. 

Cal?

[Egaeus]

Hey, my idea targets the "parasites"  Someone who is doing well would have no real use for $10,000.  It's a small amount of money.   If they want kids, they'll forego the money. 

Maybe it should be $10000 - sum(fibonacci(number of kids)). 

[3imo]

You are still banning Procreation.   By taxing people for having babies.

All your saying is that poor people cannot have children.  Thats f%&ked up.  People poorer than US can and still do contribute to society.

NOT all "parasites" are poor. 

Forcing people to not have children is not the answer  whether it be by taxation or law it is wrong.  And having too many babies is not the main core problem of the worlds over population.

We as "Humans" have a whole world at our disposal.  the way "we" treat it is the PROBLEM. 

I am not saying it will work, I honestly think it won't.  But it might.  the U.K. might already have the answer. who knows.

[Jake D]

And having too many babies is not the main core problem of the worlds over population.

That is kind of like saying that having no hair isn't the main problem of being bald. 

[Egaeus]

You are still banning Procreation.   By taxing people for having babies.

All your saying is that poor people cannot have children.  Thats f%$ked up.  People poorer than US can and still do contribute to society.

NOT all "parasites" are poor. 

Forcing people to not have children is not the answer  whether it be by taxation or law it is wrong.  And having too many babies is not the main core problem of the worlds over population.

We as "Humans" have a whole world at our disposal.  the way "we" treat it is the PROBLEM. 

I am not saying it will work, I honestly think it won't.  But it might.  the U.K. might already have the answer. who knows.

Where do I tax anyone for anything?