GStwin.com GS500 Message Forum

I need your comments.. this is for a class project

So we hit 300 million sometime last week. I have a class project and i am trying to see what your thoughts would be on the impact on this world and the US by the increase in population.
Surely the US does have plenty of room to take more people but in the rate that we eat up resources and the amount of pollution we generate. There is definitely a environmental impact that has to go with the 3rd largest populous country in the world. After all we do use over 35% of the worlds oil. So is it good that we are breeding. Though not at the rate that india is doing so, but still?

What are your views on the population gains and the environment.

My view is that the world does have its population and a growing one at that. we cant prevent people from having sex. Its goes against nature and what men are all about. however if we can find ways to reduce our needs on resources that way our population expansion wont have that significant an effect on the environment.

Lets hear your voices..

TGG (Manjul)

Don't worry dude, I am sure OMW has already figured it out for us young and weak minded.

Have you ever noticed that the majority of people that live in countries with the highest populations live in "sub-standard" conditions?

Now, ask yourself why that is...


IMO...  The fragile US economy can't take much more pressure before it just collapses.

Relax guys.  I've got this one figured out already.  Here is my three phase plan.
Phase 1: Get certain religions to relax their views on the use of birth control.  This would have a wide sweeping effect.
Phase 2: Require anyone that receives state social assistance to submit to a yearly Depoprevera shot.  You want babies?  Show us you can keep a job. 
Phase 3: Get our government, as well as others, and all the major religions to start teaching the idea that you should only be directly responsible for the production of two children.  That means you and your wife can only have two between you.  If you only have one kid in your first marriage, only have one in your second, but then only if your second wife has only had none previously.  The Idea here people, is that if we only "replace" our self and our spouse on this planet, the population shouldn't grow.  In other words: "This child is mine.  He replaces me on the planet.  This child over here is my wifes.  She replaces her on this planet.  Two in, two out.  We're even steven, thanks for playing."

I think a quick tax reform would help too...  Rather than giving a tax break to those that cost the government MORE money (meaning people with kids and the cost of their schooling), the government should give a tax break to people without kids...

So...  They'd have to pay XX taxes per kid...



And those that voluntarily sterilize themselves should get an additional tax break.

:thumb:

Quote from: RVertigo on October 30, 2006, 03:06:58 PM
Have you ever noticed that the majority of people that live in countries with the highest populations live in "sub-standard" conditions?

Now, ask yourself why that is...

because their poor or their government squanders the resources and wealth on themselves.

England and much of Europe have much more population per square mile, and rural areas are dissappearing.  I feel like the same thing will happen to the US... altho i don't really like it.  I don't want to live in NYC, and don't really want NYC any closer to me, if you know what I mean.

I'm doing my part, no kids for me :thumb:

Sorry All

I plan on having at least two more kids.  That makes four.   I would fight a government that would tell me I could only have two.  What is this China?

sometimes the easy answer isn't the right one. 

You know...   I don't think pop/mile² is the problem...  It's about sheer numbers...

You reach a point where volume just becomes unmanageable...   The difference between 3 people living in a studio apartment with one kitchen and one bathroom....   and 30 people living in a 10 bedroom house with one kitchen and one bathroom.

There's a point where you can no longer keep up with the basic needs of modern society.  Power generation is already being pushed to its limits in many parts of the country...  Rolling blackouts (or brown-outs) are common in very hot summers and very cold winters...  Now magnify the demand for power...

Food production and shipping...

Basic health needs...


It sounds crazy, but you can see it in L.A.  I'm used to going into a retail store and finding what I want, easily...  But in LA, the stock was ALWAYS low...  EVERYWHERE.  It's the craziest thing...  I could NEVER find clothes or shoes...  And any food that was on sale was always GONE.

Quote from: 3imo on October 30, 2006, 03:32:39 PMI would fight a government that would tell me I could only have two.

I don't think there should be a hard limit...  Just more taxes.


So...  One would cost...  Eh... Something like $1000 a year...  The second would be $2000...  Then the third would be $3000...  And so on.

So...  You could have 20 kids if you wanted...  But, you'd be dropping $210,000 a year in taxes.   :icon_mrgreen:

We are in a society that is eating its own foundation. no doubt, but keeping us (you and me) from procreating shouldn't be the solution.

too many people...well than lets stop making them.....  sounds like a joke to me.
That's like not planting crops cause it might not rain this year.

Eventually we will face something as a united society of humans and come up with a plan that works. Probably because we as a whole have no choice.

either that or we will all die or kill each other off.  Either way, I plan on giving my kids that chance as bleak as it is.

Quote from: 3imo on October 30, 2006, 03:32:39 PM
Sorry All

I plan on having at least two more kids.  That makes four.   I would fight a government that would tell me I could only have two.  What is this China?

sometimes the easy answer isn't the right one. 

No.  China has three times the population the U.S. has.  
If you want to live in China, or a place like China, just keep having babies, just wait.  If everyone that lives in the U.S. has 3 kids, we will have 1,000,000,000 people here too.  And it will only take one generation.   Seems like having kids to spite your government is dumb.  Having kids because you like kids is one thing.  But if you do that, you can't complain about the population growth.

Quote from: 3imo on October 30, 2006, 03:46:42 PMEventually we will face something as a united society of humans and come up with a plan that works.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Are you not  American?  :laugh:

Quote from: 3imo on October 30, 2006, 03:46:42 PMeither that or we will all die or kill each other off.

There we go...   The American way!

Quote from: 3imo on October 30, 2006, 03:46:42 PM

too many people...well than lets stop making them.....  sounds like a joke to me.
That's like not planting crops cause it might not rain this year.

Here is a different analogy.
3imo, go buy some 2x4 and some chicken wire.  Build a cage.  Then buy 2 rabbits.  A boy and a girl.  Keep buying food and feeding.  Buy lots of food because they are going to reproduce.  And fast.  When you have 10 rabbits, your cage will likely be full.  Don't fret.  Build another cage.  You'll probably need more than one.  Build four.  If you don't have room for four, buy your neighbors house or rent a part of his back yard.  Soon, you'll need more cages and keep the food coming please.  In a few short generations, you have 400 rabits, 200 cages, and a lot of small, round poop. 
If this is a problem, you can always build more cages.  After all, we're talking about rabbits.

Earth is different than a rabbit cage.  Our only neighbor is the moon. 

What is the answer?  Well, short of living on the moon, I'd say slow the rate of growth of our population.  What is the best way of doing that?  Replace only yourself on this planet.  Two in, two out.    

Can the government get us to only have two?  No.  But religions could help.  And the government could encourage.  If they can encourage us to just "Say No" to drugs, they can encourage us to just say no to that third child. 

Quote from: Jake D on October 30, 2006, 03:47:05 PM
  Seems like having kids to spite your government is dumb.  Having kids because you like kids is one thing.  But if you do that, you can't complain about the population growth.

your right, that would be dumb.  I want kids cause I love my kids and I want the best for them.   AND I wasn't complaining.

Quote from: 3imo on October 30, 2006, 03:46:42 PM
either that or we will all die or kill each other off.  Either way, I plan on giving my kids that chance as bleak as it is.

RV, I can see the reality of it, I am American.  But I hate to think that I might not have been here if someone convinced my parents to not have more than two. I was the fourth.  or my parents parents. my father was the eighth of ten.

Quote from: Jake D on October 30, 2006, 03:58:33 PM

  Our only neighbor is the moon. 

What is the answer?  Well, short of living on the moon, I'd say slow the rate of growth of our population.  What is the best way of doing that?  Replace only yourself on this planet.  Two in, two out. 

Can the government get us to only have two? No. But religions could help. And the government could encourage. If they can encourage us to just "Say No" to drugs, they can encourage us to just say no to that third child.

how much would it cost the World as a whole to construct a place to live on the moon?  we will never know because %99.33  of the worlds population is too worried about themselves.
I can accept that.

Please don't think I don't see the problem.  I am not blind nor stupid.  I understand and appreciate your analogy. You are right on.

try this one.   20 families living in a geodome on planet xraythia.  no supplies and they must grow thier own food. they have the technology and the manpower to conserve their resources and make life less taxing on their environment.

those twenty families have a greater chance of survival in a tiny geodome on a distant planet..than all of us do on this planet.

the answer is not that they would stop having children.  They would communicate and work to gether to expand or become more efficient.  Their population will continue to grow and they would work to gether to manage it.

Us here on earth we are all doomed untill something really drastic happens to make us change our ways and learn to communicate and work together as equals.

I know it won't work and it won't happen that way, but it might. And I am willing to give my children that chance. Better that than nothing at all.

Jake that means we need to Start eating our Weakest Young.Man I love Rabbit.

One otherway to Get the Population Down is let the Stronger Sibblings Eliminate the Weaker without Jail Time.

I have some Friends (I guess I can call them that  :icon_confused: ) that Actally Got married and they're not much Smarter than Forrest Gump  (Seems that way anyway) they had there First Kid 12 Years Ago when she was 18 and they're on Number 5 Now and she's not even 30 Yet.I don't think #4 is His but They don't work and are Taking a Free Ride off of the Government and their Parents.The Guys Dad has Paid for all 5 and the Government is Supporting them.I've Had the Guy Working For me several times and at the End of the Day His Wife would come and Talk the Boss into Paying Him for the Work that he did that Day. :mad: :mad: All because she wanted to go to McDonalds to get the Kids Happy Meals. :mad: :mad: It makes me Mad everytime they come Around.

or like japan, we can try an keep the population increasing.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003315543_japanbirth21.html?syndication=rss

Quote from: 3imo on October 30, 2006, 04:16:43 PMBut I hate to think that I might not have been here

Dude...  Think about what you just said...  You wouldn't be here...  So, how would you know?

You wouldn't be here to know that you're not here!




I honestly don't give a shaZam! if the world gets so over populated it turns into "Welcome To The Monkey House."  Just as long as it happens after I die.

All of these look like a "If I were King" situation and I'm not really answering his question but here goes what I think. Well, here's the way I'd start "looking at the problem". I'd divide the population into groups on paper (and this would be an ardous task to be sure) firstly at the most prominent locations (states and large metro areas and "attack it" from that angle. They'd be divided into Elitists (and their associates), Producers (and their families), Retired Producers (and spouses), ILLEGAL Immigrants, Habitual Parasites (and their families), and Evil useless elements/predators of society (realizing that a couple of these groups might overlap).
As to what should be done to each group, well, that could range from an all expenses paid  2 weeks trip to Las Vagas or Rome or Florida, to being forcibly sterilized, to being thrown into the most massive prison on the earth, to being dragged from your home in your Guicci pajamas and being hung from the nearest lamp post or tree limb kicking and screaming, to extremely HARSH repatriation to wherever you came from, to "terminal relocation". But one thing is certain. The population WOULD decrease. Then, then........... I am somewhat of an isolationist but I would allow trade BUT I would take OUR interest to heart FIRST. I would need the very best Minister of Propaganda ever known for starters! More to come later. Need to eat and go to beddy. 5 comes early!
Nighty nite, sleep tight, and don't let the bedbugs bite! :)

World over population, hmmm hard to fix even if we had 1 government controling the whole earth, but we don't so it would never work.   In the States we could never get it to work unless the government takes away our liberties and freedom.  We are supposed to be the land of the free.  Do what we want when we wan't too.  How would it look if these new law's were put into effect to curb over population?

1.  If your a murderer, habitual criminal then no jail for you, electirc chair.  That would help alot right there.
2.  Until your 18 required birth control, if you do become pregnant then automatic abortion.
3.  Want to have a child that can enroll in school?  Fine you have to apply for a permit to get pregnant and have
     children.
4.  No more welfare or whatever they are calling it these days.  Set up government daycare centers, if you
     work then you can leave your child there,  during your working hrs.  Otherwise stay home and starve.
5.  If your child is born with a defect they don't get to live.
6.  Free abortion's nation wide.

Any of the above would not fly in America and most of the countries in the world.  Until something drastic happens and we as Humans ( not differnt countries or different races) have to do something about it.  It's sad but true.  Every government in the world would have to agree to controling populations in order for anyting to be done.  And thats not going to happen anytime soon.

All you need is a government willing to pay people money to become sterilized.  Can you imagine how many people would line up for tubal ligation or vasectomies for $10,000.  Make the reversal a more expensive proposition ($10,000 + cost of original surgery + compounded interest + cost of reversal).  That would save a crapload of resources in the long-term.  

The problem is that all of our economic models are based on growth, growth, growth!  Your stock doesn't go up if your sales stay the same.  You! must! sell! more!  To do that, you either take away sales from others (causing their stock to go down for no net economic growth) or you have more people to sell to!  Sell!  More!  Grow!  

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

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....  :icon_mrgreen:

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.

Quote from: jake42 on October 30, 2006, 07:43:15 PM
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.

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

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

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. 

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!  :icon_mrgreen:).

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!  :laugh:..oh...wait...the state gave us to our adoptive parents....nm...)

Quote from: pandy on October 31, 2006, 03:25:03 PM
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!  :icon_mrgreen:).

:laugh:  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.

Quote from: pandy on October 31, 2006, 03:25:03 PM
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.

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.

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...

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.

Quote from: 3imo on November 01, 2006, 11:19:50 AM
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.

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."

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?

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)). 

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.

Quote from: 3imo on November 01, 2006, 01:53:37 PM

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. 

Quote from: 3imo on November 01, 2006, 01:53:37 PM
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?

I see the problem as the other way around.  We're having fewer children then ever before, but our population is still growing faster than ever.  Why?  People are living longer!  

-Abortion, yup make that sh!t availible at WalMart.  Yes, I'm a Christian, yes I think abortion is wrong and immoral, but we have too many people having children that shouldn't be.  It may not be nice to be killing babies, but it's nessecary.

-Drop welfare for those who don't work.  Can't get a job? Starve to death.

-Legalize all drugs, make them availible at WalMart right next to the abortions.  Addicted to herion? Great, have some more, maybe you'll OD.

-Eliminate habeas corpus for death row.  Right from the court the the chair, simple as that.  Were't really guilt?  Oops, oh well, there are 299,999,999 more people.

-All else fails, give Jonathan Swift's Modest Proposal a try.  

Quote from: LimaXray on November 01, 2006, 03:23:24 PMI see the problem as the other way around.

So...  In other words, turn into a third world country...

Quote from: 3imo on October 30, 2006, 03:32:39 PM
Sorry All

I plan on having at least two more kids.  That makes four.   I would fight a government that would tell me I could only have two.  What is this China?

sometimes the easy answer isn't the right one. 

Nice. :thumb: read my signature, so true

Jake, just for the record I did not recoment China's one-child policy I merely recognised that it exists and to a degree works. That's a long way from enforcing control. Italy used to have the highest birthrate in europe it is now very nearly the lowest. The population decided that Fiats, Lambourginis and Feraries were important too. Put another way they decided that they wanted material things and a different (perhaps better) way of life. This happened against a background of opposition by the Catholic Church. Italians seem to have done this by themselves which indicates that populations can be influenced by means other than mandatory rules.

All the indications are that provided we can get a grip on the carbon issue and global warming/ climate change the earth could double its population fairly painlessly, doubling again could be a bit of a problem but hopefully economic factors, education and some benign propoganda could influence the population to control itself.

If we dont stop climate change we can expect 200 million refugees from Africa to walk north into Europe, lord knows how many from South and central America to look to the north for salvation and we aint going to cope with that sort of influx. On top of that the melting and final disapearance of Himalayan glaciers will initially flood vast areas of the Indian sub-continent and then leave it in permanent drought, tens of millions will be directly threatened. This little package does not even begin to take into account all those on lowlands that may well be lost to rising seas.

Cheery aint it? On the plus side feeding a doubled population is no big deal especially when you take into account that we have only started to "farm" the seas which cover most of the planet so we gotta stop chucking our excrement into the sea and farm it, tackle global warming and we should be good for a few thousand more years.

Attactive as OMWs ideas are about parasites, there probably are not enough of them globally to make that much difference. I don't have a problem with the way he divides society, People who contribute (or contributed over a life) people who don't, People who won't and possibly we should include people who can't for whatever reason. maybe extermination is a little drastic but a bit of arse-kicking, well why not.

No-one says this is going to be easy but it is still possible but 20 years down the line it may not be, it seems to me that 1% of GDP is affordable but 20% would cause a collapse of order in what would be a seriously deteriorating situation anyway.

Oh well lets look on the bright side and go for a ride,.......
Whilst we still can............

PS. Yes I do have a vested interest in all this, I only live a few feet above sea-level and I have Grandchildren who i hope will get to enjoy the world as much as i have been priveledged to do.

3imo, Yes I believe that eventually China's system will collapse like the Soviets did, it will probably take longer as they seem a very conservative people in many ways but as the thirst for individual libety takes hold eventually something will give. this may well result in a slowing of growth whilst political upheaval takes place and possibly some fragmentation of the country like the Eastern European experience where some area returned to tribalism for a while but Chjina aint going to go away, it may change but it is still on the way to becoming the world's dominant economy. history shows that the economy that leads manufacturing and trading eventually becomes the biggest political and military power also. British Empire of 19th century, American empire of 20th century, China of 21st?? there's a thought, well if it happens they will have to sort all this mess out.

That's my two-pennyworth.

Quote from: RVertigo on November 01, 2006, 03:32:33 PM

Quote from: LimaXray on November 01, 2006, 03:23:24 PMI see the problem as the other way around.

So...  In other words, turn into a third world country...

that was like 90% joking btw... i really don't condone eating babies

I recon Manjul/TGG must have enough here for a dozen class projects ! (see first post)

Quote from: Jake D on November 01, 2006, 02:52:23 PM

Quote from: 3imo on November 01, 2006, 01:53:37 PM

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. 

Actually you are right. It is like saying that having no hair isn't the main problem of being bald.

If a man is bald and I give him a handful of my hair is he not still bald?  He HAS hair, I just gave it to him.

To get to the root of the problem and fix it, you must know what caused his baldness and you have to find out how to fix it. You cannot just give him a wig cause he would still be bald.

Overpopulation is not about how many babies we have. That is not even the main point. But the easy answer is "stop having babies" .
It just seems to make sense, but it is a rash conclusion. I don't know how else to explain myself.

Overpopulation is about resources, infrastructure, money, social ailments...and on the list goes.

Actually take the time to read and "comprehend" Cal Price's last few posts, He makes some really major points about battling the worlds Overpopulation, WITHOUT banning procreation.

Quote from: Egaeus on November 01, 2006, 03:22:32 PM

Quote from: 3imo on November 01, 2006, 01:53:37 PM
You are still banning Procreation.   By taxing people for having babies.

Where do I tax anyone for anything?

Sorry, I thought you were refering to "charging" people $10K per child.

Paying $10k to get sterilized might be a good idea, but it alone would not have a significant change in the worlds population.

I would just have my four kids and then get sterilized and buy them some cool go-karts or dirt bikes.  :thumb:

Which is why I modified my proposal to reduce the amount according to number of children. :)

I do support the elimination of the child tax credit.  Not taxing people for children, but removing any incentive. 

However, that really doesn't help the big picture much.  The US population growth rate due to more births than deaths isn't that high.  Immigration isn't really a problem either, as the immigrants usually adopt the local culture (and lower birth rate) within a generation or two. 

The problem is uncontrolled growth in other countries that can't sustain it.  If we want to avoid people starving to death, then it has to be curbed.  No amount of sustainable development can continue to feed a continually growing population.  A population of 6 billion in 2005, growing at 2 percent per year, reaches over 44 billion in 2105 and almost 315 billion in 2205.  It can't be sustained.

Quote from: Egaeus on November 02, 2006, 08:58:24 AM
Immigration isn't really a problem either, as the immigrants usually adopt the local culture (and lower birth rate) within a generation or two. 

You haven't lived in OUR neighborhood!  :laugh:

The U.S., and most of Europe are first world, industrialized countries.  We've actually had a stable birth rate of around 2.08 for some time now.  The reason population has grown the way it has is because of immigration.  This is not necessarily a bad thing. 

My solution: 

Help the rest of the world become wealthier and more advanced.  The birth rate will fall naturally.  Everyone is happy.

Quote from: BaoQingTian on November 02, 2006, 05:40:08 PM
Help the rest of the world become wealthier and more advanced.  The birth rate will fall naturally.  Everyone is happy.

We can't do this even within our own country. I don't think we'd even be able to begin helping the rest of the world. Heck, how many other "first world"countries don't even offer basic medical care to all their citizens?  :dunno_white:

.........and if you fit the description of a habitual welfare offender that can NOT and WILL NOT take care of your children that you keep on birthing and birthing............birthing.........it's
time for the stainless steel table while you kick and scream!!. Get out the chlorophorm (sic?) and scapel, time to "take care of that prob". Same goes for crack whores. And if you are a worthless
male that goes around "fathering babies" with zero intentions of taking care of them.........
guess what?  Yeppers (for all you Calif. folk)..........get your ass up on that stainless steel table
and give up the testicles, And your paycheck, until the kid is 18. Don't want to? Good. "Terminal Relocation" time.                                        nite nite.

Pandy, No I've racked my grey matter and I can't think of one other.

Helping the developing and third world need not cost a fortune, it is a matter on "enlightened self interest" often simple thing like dismantling trade barriers and endless beurocrasy is enough. Bill Clinton (wait for it!) in a recent speech over here about his foundation, amongst other things, gave education in Pakistan as a good example. His point was that most families in Pakistan could not afford the fees to send the kids to school, not for long anyway. Where free or subsidised education was available it had 100% take-up. To provide basic free schooling to Pakistan would cost something like three million pounds, maybe that's about five million dollars. The punchline is that if "we" don't the families who want education for their kids will send them to the Madrassars where they are welcomed with open arms and get an education, they also get indoctrination and some get special attention and grooming, the best then end up as the next generation of terrorist leaders and the others get to be suicide bombers.

Now do the maths, forget the loss of life and commercial losses for a moment and simply look at what we are currently spending on preventative and security measures, let alone military intervention and compare it with the cost of third-world education.

That's what Bill said, I'll add this bit...

We "the first world" would actually make a profit on that bit of aid. We all know the "give a man a fish - teach a man to fish" analogy, educate his kids and they won't need teaching to fish, they will figure it out for themselves and teach their own less fortunate. Some will turn out wrong, 80% will be OK and a few will end up like Bill Gates, just like any other society. Once they start doing well at home they will be less inclined to start crossing border illegaly too.

Quote from: BaoQingTian on November 02, 2006, 05:40:08 PM
The U.S., and most of Europe are first world, industrialized countries.  We've actually had a stable birth rate of around 2.08 for some time now.  The reason population has grown the way it has is because of immigration.  This is not necessarily a bad thing. 

My solution: 

Help the rest of the world become wealthier and more advanced.  The birth rate will fall naturally.  Everyone is happy.

Yes.  Or. . . or. . . .OR. . . the rest of the world could help themselves and stop sweating our nuts all the time for financial help, moral guidance, and entertainment.

Quote from: pandy on November 02, 2006, 08:54:11 PM
We can't do this even within our own country. I don't think we'd even be able to begin helping the rest of the world. Heck, how many other "first world"countries don't even offer basic medical care to all their citizens?  :dunno_white:

Have you ever been outside the country and seen how other people live in these 3rd world countries?  Someone in this country living at the poverty line still has a car or two, televisions, cable TV, and a cellphone.  Farmers in central America live on something like $1 a day.  They continue to have so many children because an agregarian lifestyle demands it.   As the U.S. moved away from agriculture to a more industrial society, birth rates declined dramatically.  Currently, the more money you make, the less children you are likely to have. 

I see your point about basic medical care, although I disagree with you slightly about it's availability here in the U.S.-there are a number of sliding scale or free clinics to help the poor, as well as government programs.  However, isolationalism until we fix our own problems is a pipe dream.  Historically, isolationism is a dead end both economically and politically.  Look at the fall of Byzantine empire, particularly Constantinople, for example.  For something a bit closer to home, study the withdrawl of the U.S. from the world stage following WWI in Europe.  We basically stayed at home and licked our wounds, both politically and economically.  The resulting tariffs were likely one of the causes of the Great Depression.  The resulting state of military unprepardness made us vulnerable to Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor, and if they would have pressed onwards potential invasion.

JakeD,

Although I'm really NOT a Bill Clinton fan, Cal Price mentioned some valid points that he made- particularly that many types of aid help us in the short term, as well as long run.  I'm not suggesting at all that we need to distribute massive amounts of foreign aid.  Indeed, it's a rather ineffectual strategy to just throw money at a problem (the way we send AIDS money to Africa being a case in point). 

There are many things we can do to help other countries that help us that don't involve giving foreign aid.    Bush's guest worker program is a good example of this.  It would potentially help Mexico economically, the U.S. economy, and both Mexican and U.S. citizens individually.

So you mean there might be other actual causes to overpopulation than just having to many babies? what a concept? who'd a thunk it?

I know thats not what you said, I just like the way this thread is going.  Smart thought out responses to a Problem , not its symptom.


Where's that Franklin quote?

here it is.

Quote from: 3imo on November 01, 2006, 11:27:56 AM
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.

So the solution is there should be no agricultural societies? 

Quote from: 3imo on November 03, 2006, 11:38:31 AM
So you mean there might be other actual causes to overpopulation than just having to many babies? what a concept? who'd a thunk it?

I know thats not what you said, I just like the way this thread is going.  Smart thought out responses to a Problem , not its symptom.


Where's that Franklin quote?

In case you didn't see that, in my post.  seems like ya didn't.  just a bit of clarifying.

<Pokes 3imo with stick.  Chuckles.>

(http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:hwTkQTFspUz0ZM:http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j110/Alyssa80j/Picture94.jpg)

/me says "STOOOOOOOOOOOOP!

Dude...  Just don't have kids and you won't care.


When the U.S. falls harder than Rome, you can just pick up and find somewhere else to live...  You don't have to worry about keeping the little rugrats alive.  You just have to worry about #1 (and #2 if you're married).



So, here are my thoughts on the population increase...

First, look at the statistics of who's having the kids...  People that REALLY think about having kids aren't having many...  Rich, educated people aren't having many...  Three at most...  Some aren't having any kids.  People that DON'T think about it are having lots of kids...   Poor, uneducated people are having as many as they happen to have...  One... Twelve...  You know, whatever happens.


So, take that trend and fast forward 5 generations.


But, you see...  I'll be long, long, long dead...  So, why the f%$k do I care?

(And yes, I just said that if you're shitting out lots of kids, you're f%$king stupid.  Rarr)

Sub 2 treats problem, not symptom.  Hey, wait.  So do sub 1 and sub 3.  Wooopsies!!

Quote from: Jake D on October 30, 2006, 03:15:58 PM
Relax guys.  I've got this one figured out already.  Here is my three phase plan.
Phase 1: Get certain religions to relax their views on the use of birth control.  This would have a wide sweeping effect.
Phase 2: Require anyone that receives state social assistance to submit to a yearly Depoprevera shot.  You want babies?  Show us you can keep a job. 
Phase 3: Get our government, as well as others, and all the major religions to start teaching the idea that you should only be directly responsible for the production of two children.  That means you and your wife can only have two between you.  If you only have one kid in your first marriage, only have one in your second, but then only if your second wife has only had none previously.  The Idea here people, is that if we only "replace" our self and our spouse on this planet, the population shouldn't grow.  In other words: "This child is mine.  He replaces me on the planet.  This child over here is my wifes.  She replaces her on this planet.  Two in, two out.  We're even steven, thanks for playing."

Quote from: RVertigo on November 03, 2006, 01:10:08 PM
First, look at the statistics of who's having the kids...  People that REALLY think about having kids aren't having many...  Rich, educated people aren't having many...  

 People that DON'T think about it are having lots of kids...   Poor, uneducated people are having as many as they happen to have...  One... Twelve...  You know, whatever happens.

Where'd you get your stats?  Worldwide you may have a bit of a point. just a bit. Poorer nations tend to have cultures that have a lot of children.
These "stupid" poor people still live in a society where you are more likely to survive if you have a large household.

the Idea that they are ALL not thinking about their future and just having kids whenever they just happen to get pregnant is "STUPID".

We are all so absorbed in our own lives that we all just don't even try to consider why those different from us live the way they do. It is so much easier to label them "stupid " and take the high road.

So much easier to just let them die for being "stupid".
-----

Then there are the "smart" rich peolple who know how to think and plan for the future. They have it all figured out. Don't they?

In my humble opinion, I believe that some people in our society choose to not have children because they want a good life for themselves. I have actually met and served in Iraq with a guy who choose this path in life. He can afford the 32' rims on his Escalade and his trips to Spain or Australia.
To him that is the definition of wealth.

To me My children define my wealth in life.  I do not mean to say this guy is wrong. I believe choosing to procreate is not something to take lightly.

I think RV is mistaken. Not for calling us "baby makers" Stupid. I will cry about that later.  I mean It isn't hard to witness social trends and come to a twisted conclusion.

Many rich and poor families choose not to have children. Many Rich and poor people choose to have multiple children.  The Social trend in the U.S. for the last ....say 50 years, is to have less children.

Is that because we Americans are smarter now? Did my being more educated than my Grandparents, cause me to have only 4 kids instead of 8?
NO. I grew up in a society that tends to have less children.

you know your my Boy, RV.  Don't get your feelings hurt if I disagree with ya..

Quote from: Jake D on November 03, 2006, 01:19:05 PM
Sub 2 treats problem, not symptom.  Hey, wait.  So do sub 1 and sub 3.  Wooopsies!!

The only "problem" they treat is people having babies.  The problem isn't people having babies.

I personally have seen a woman have the State, aka DFS or Division of Family Services, take 8 kids away.  8 terminations of parental rights.  The kids get taken away because of neglect and because mom is a drugged out.  Then the kids go into foster care, up for adoption.  But some, if not most of them, were pretty screwed up by their natural parents.  That is one of my concerns.  There are so many kids that are wards of the state because they are unwanted, or worse, they parents have them just so they can get an increase in their subsidies from the state.  Unwanted children and using children to get state money are two problems, whether you know about it or not, and whether you want to believe it or not. 

I think your problem is, you have no idea what the problem is.

Quote from: Jake D on November 03, 2006, 12:56:48 PM
So the solution is there should be no agricultural societies? 

Not quite what I was driving at, but I suspect you knew that.  Although the United States is definately an industrialized nation, it actually produces a surplus of food.  Through technology we've been able to minimize human labor and produce more food as a result.  

In other words, the amount of food that used to take villages of 50 families with 15 people per family to produce can now be produced by a couple of guys and a tractor.  

Quote from: BaoQingTian on November 03, 2006, 10:52:59 AM
Have you ever been outside the country and seen how other people live in these 3rd world countries? 

Many times.  :thumb:

Quote from: BaoQingTian on November 03, 2006, 10:52:59 AM
I see your point about basic medical care, although I disagree with you slightly about it's availability here in the U.S.-there are a number of sliding scale or free clinics to help the poor, as well as government programs.  However, isolationalism until we fix our own problems is a pipe dream.  Historically, isolationism is a dead end both economically and politically.

I don't think anyone is suggesting isolationism. My point was that if we can't manage something successfully in our own country, how are we going to "teach" or help the rest of the world to do what we haven't accomplished? If we don't have a universal health-care system here, should we go up to Canada and teach them how to do it? Their system might not be perfect, but folks aren't going bankrupt due to catastrophic illness.

Too many people in our country are too close to losing everything in order to get treatment. If you have no money, then you can get Medicaid for medical treatment. If you're rich, you can afford to pay for your own. If you're in the middle class, you can suffer tremendously even if you have medical insurance.

I know one lady who recently became disabled, and she's going through the process of being authorized for Social Security Disability. She cannot work. She owns a home. She lost her job due to her medical problems. SSD can take up to a year or more to be approved. This lady has no income, and she cannot get any sort of assistance. She's spent her retirement on medical bills....all of it.... She'll likely lose her home before she's able to get any assistance. She's worked hard all of her life, and her health problems will now likely cause her to lose everything. She's unable to get medical treatment right now, because she's "house rich." Ok. She can sell her home! How will she pay for food and medical treatment during the time it takes her to sell her house and for SSD to start coming in?

I agree that Cal shared some excellent points. I'm not a particular fan of any politician at the moment; I think too many of them are too short-sighted, plus, they're worried more about the partyline right now than what's good for our country and its citizens. I was raised by ditto-head Republicans, but I can see the benefits of some of the things Cal listed from Clinton's speech being applied here at home, too. Imagine how much better off we as a society would be if everyone had access to higher education. Yes, I believe that we can all raise ourselves by our bootstraps and put ourselves through college (yup, I did it), but how about advanced education for all? We can't afford it? Well, how much have we spent in Iraq? How many weapons are now missing? How much government money is simply squandered and wasted?

Perhaps if some of this money was spent on the basic infrastructure here, we'd be in a much better position to help the rest of the world. Teach a man to fish.....

That doesn't mean that I believe we shouldn't invest in the infrastructures of other countries, too. One could argue that that's what we're doing in Iraq, but did we go about it the right way? Could we have done better? Have we learned from our experience? Is Iraq another Vietnam, or is this a different learning experience?

Quote from: BaoQingTian on November 03, 2006, 10:52:59 AMThere are many things we can do to help other countries that help us that don't involve giving foreign aid. Bush's guest worker program is a good example of this.  It would potentially help Mexico economically, the U.S. economy, and both Mexican and U.S. citizens individually.

We have at least two guest-worker programs: the H-1(b) Temporary Guest Worker Program and the L-1 "Intra-Company" Transfer Visa. The H-1(b)  program has a cap and a rule that companies must pay the prevailing wage for the workers they sponser. That cap has a number of exemptions. The L-1 program has no cap and no prevailing-wage rule. These programs purport to fill jobs that can't be filled by U.S. citizens, but last time I checked, we had a number of fine candidates for employment here. Do we really need yet another guest-worker program?

I have absolutely no objection to forming another mutually-beneficial partnership with Mexico, but I do disagree with slapping all the folks who've patiently waited and jumped through the numerous hoops in order to become citizens legally. Hospitals are in desperate financial states due to the federal dictate that they must treat anyone who presents with an emergency. This problem is being particularly felt by those states/counties who've had large influxes of illegals.

Here's an idea for controlling the U.S. population: when our nation was first born, its founders wanted to increase its population. They declared that anyone born here would automatically be considered a citizen of the U.S. Well, I don't think we're in desperate need of more citizens to populate the land, so how about changing that rule? How about a new rule: a child's parents must be citizens in order for a baby born here to be a citizen upon birth. This eliminates any incentive for citizens of other countries to illegally enter the U.S. to bear their children, and it saves hospitals from the burdens of financing the births of these new little citizens.

Obviously, no one thing is going to solve the world's population-growth problem (if there is a problem), but there can be small steps both locally and globally that can help.  :thumb:

Quote from: Jake D on November 03, 2006, 01:44:34 PM
I think your problem is, you have no idea what the problem is.

Sure, drugg addicted mommas are a problem.  I believe in that.  :thumb:
Sure mommas having children to get money is a problem. I can see that.  :thumb:

I think your problem is, you have no Idea what problem I am talking about.  The Problem of the World's Overpopulation.
(coincidentally mentioned in the title of this thread)

Overpopulation causes strains on societies. The problem is not people having babies (even crack whores).

A symptom of Overpopulation is the belief that it is caused by future births, instead of the way we treat the world and communicate with our neighbors.

Ok....I'm a little confused here..... overpopulation isn't caused by people having babies?  :dunno_white:  :icon_mrgreen:

I know right.  Iv'e repeated the same statement over and over.

Am I really that wrong?

Right pandy, at least not necessarily.  Overpopulation is inherently related to carrying capacity-it's meaningless to talk about 'over'-population unless you know what the max population is (carrying capacity).  

I think what 3imo may be talking about is distribution of resources.  If you are able to continually increase the carrying capacity of the environment, then continued population growth (having more babies) is not a problem whatsoever.  Unfortunately, since we are currently confined to just one planet, there will be eventually be a maximum amount that we can increase our carrying capacity.  

Of course, 3imo is free to correct me if I've misinterpreted what he's getting at.

yeah, what he said!!

Don't hold it against me that I cannot convey my message intelligently.

Thanks BaoQingTian.  just don't poke me with a stick. :thumb:

Quote from: 3imo on November 03, 2006, 02:21:20 PM
Don't hold it against me that I cannot convey my message intelligently. :thumb:

It was I who didn't understand it intelligently! ;)  Thanks for clarifying for me, BaoQingTian!  :cheers:

This seems like an extremely difficult formula to come up with. You have people being born, people dying, and technology advancing. So how does one determine what's too much or what's sustainable? And who decides? Is this a political issue or a scientific one...or both!?

I love discussions that raise as many or more questions than they answer!  :icon_mrgreen:

Quote from: 3imo on November 03, 2006, 02:11:39 PM
I know right.  Iv'e repeated the same statement over and over.

Am I really that wrong?

Since you asked. 

Yep!

What your saying is, we don't need fewer people.  We just need more stuff to give to them.  The QVC theory.  Ah, so.

Novel.  When you see the Bladrunner, tell him I said, "sup?".

pandy-
Unfortunately, carrying capacity concepts pertaining to humans are currently impossible to calculate.  There are so many variables involved when you're dealing with an intelligent, sentient species like humans.  The current ecological models don't apply.  Also, you start having to make pesky value judgements.  For example, letting the weaker die off due to famine would probably be frowned on as a way to bring human population to sustainable levels (not that I'm saying they are currently unsustainable).  And what's the quality of life for people crammed into apartments like sardines in a can, eating overly processed foods as they put on their masks to emerge into their polluted city. 

Offhand, I wonder if the obesity epidemic will be a natural population limiter, resulting in dramatically dropping population rate due to decreased fertility, earlier death, more disease, in combination with the general trend to births later in life. 

Regarding your question about people dying, being born, etc.  According to the CIA factbook, the fertility rate for women in the U.S. for 2006 is 2.09 children per women.  From what I understand this is just barely enough to keep a level population and prevent population implosion (a problem much of Europe is facing).  Hence my earlier statements about the U.S. population growth being almost entirely due to immigration.

The big unknown is simply determining carrying capacity for humans.  I've seen everything from 1 billion to 15 billion thrown around.

Quote from: 3imo on November 03, 2006, 01:31:15 PMWhere'd you get your stats?

I don't recall my source (it was several years back), so I'll just have to site "Out of My Ass."


And...  The Rich, Smart thing was supposed to be two groups...  Meaning...  Rich people don't have 12 kids and Smart people don't have 12 kids...  Then...  Stupid people do have 12 kids and poor people do have 12 kids...

It's NOT a RULE, it's a general statistic...   Just like the statistic that "Conservative" states have a higher divorce rate.


I don't make this shaZam! up...  I'm just too lazy to look it up. :dunno_white:

Quote from: RVertigo on November 03, 2006, 03:38:17 PM
It's NOT a RULE, it's a general statistic...   Just like the statistic that "Conservative" states have a higher divorce rate.

I've always been interested in seeing what the divorce rates would be if adjusted against the marriage rates.  Let me know if you come across it, cause so far no luck for me.

The info I saw on that one had all kinds of statistics that basically came down to:  People in Red States are less likely to stay married...

It was one of those "Liberal Media Propaganda" stories "Attacking the 'Perfect' Republican Party."   :laugh:

Just supporting my "Stupid People" claims:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/11/01/kids.taped.ap/index.html

I've seen the statistics you're talking about.  I guess what I'm wondering is how pertinent they are.  The statistics typically tell how many divorces per thousand people per year.

However, I'm wondering if people are more likely to get married in so-called red states than their blue state counterparts (thus the marriage rate question).  Say two 23 year old people in a religious conservative state decide to get married before moving in together and starting the shagging.  It lasts for 4 years, then when they break up it's a divorce.  Now look at a 23 year old couple that gets together in a 'blue' state, moves in together, doesn't get married, shags for 4 years, and go their seperate ways.  Doesn't count as a divorce.  

While the high divorce rates in more conservative states are definately cause for concern, I can't help but wonder if we're comparing apples to oranges by essentially comparing 2 different cultures like that.

I'm still trying to formulate what this says about relationships in our larger culture, but it just makes me wonder about the relevancy of that particular statistic that I keep hearing.

and we are going to need a "Robispierre Reign of Terror" to "Straighten things out". To have gone as far downhill as we have can't be straightened out overnight (so to speak) unless we have just that. We have given and given and given and given and it's just not enough. Now "all those that we have given to" expect it. They expect it "weekly" and "annually" (individuals and countries).
The spigot (sic?) has to be cut off. When the whining and "threatening" starts. We have to deal with it quickly and harshly. Yes, Himmler's Jackboot may have to be put on some throats. But how much do you give? How much? Do you give all your paycheck, then your property and house to the "State" and let them "dole" it out as "they" see fit? Well THAT is what it will come to all under
the "guise of doing good for the benefit of all". Don't you see? "They" use all the tools of the game to garner your sympathy, caring, guilt, and COUNT on your apathy and lethargic-ness.

Open up your pocketbooks. Give.............  Idi-Amin needs "aid" in his country.........
So does "Papa and Baby Doc Duvalier".............Robert Mugabe............Communist China.....
Russia.............. God help us all

found this online. don't know it's validity or it's source reference. Maybe just some OLD MAN TALKING out his ass.  or maybe not.

-------
When will the earth be full? They call that carrying capacity. Some say we are already over populated. Others say we are not even close. Let me just share this fact. There are 6 billion people living on planet earth. If they stood side by side they could fit inside the city limits of Jacksonville, Florida, which has an area of 25,000,000,000 square feet! Take 25,000,000,000, divided by 6,000,000,000, you get 4.16 square feet per person! The world is much bigger than Jacksonville, so overcrowding can't be a problem! If one only leaves the big city and travels out through the Western United States you will realize there are million upon million of acres unsettled land in this world.
-------

If this is true (Of course I am too apathetic and lethargic to find out for myself) then it just proves my point that having babies is not the PROBLEM with overpopulation.

-----
About Himmlers's JAckboot:

This world is full of zealots and old people who fear the future, these "smart" ones may think our society is degrading. In actuality, our Human civilization is yet in it's infancy, we are learning from our mistakes, we will one day grow up as a whole and learn to communicate with one another.

What we need to do now is not tolerate those who fear change, and if given the choice would choose the route taken by the founder and officer-in-charge of the Nazi concentration camps and the Einsatzgruppen death squads. Himmler held final command responsibility for implementing the industrial-scale extermination of between 6 and 12 million people.

Not just against Jews. Racial cleansing is about purging the population of people you FEAR. NAzi's killed indescriminantly out of Fear.

I think I heard on Conan O'Brian last week:  "The population of the United States hit 300 million this week.  China responded: "How cute!""

Robispierre using Madame Guillotine executed over 17,000 people, some were peasants, some were elite, most were political enemies.

Robispierre said: "Virtue without terror is impotent." "Terror without virtue is evil." Nice man huh? He eventually was arrested and faced the guillotine himself.  He killed for personal gain. Under the guise of ridding society of "peasants" or "parasites" if you will.


If only we could resurect this guy to help "straighten us out".  :cookoo: :cookoo: :cookoo:

That doesn't prove crap.  It doesn't address even simple things like feeding everyone.  

When everyone in the world has sufficient food, water, and shelter, then we can talk.

What it "proves" is that trying to solve the worlds overpopulation by regulating how many kids I can have is just plain STUPID.

It is an answer without THOUGHT. Off the cuff. Split decision.......catch my drift? 

I know I am taking it a bit overboard, but this forum is my only soapbox to stand on. I get upset because this topic comes up from time to time (in the real world) and you always hear someone talking without thinking, saying we should tax those that have or want children, we should not allow "parasite" to bear children, we should set a 2 child limit....ect.

They don't think about it and don't realize how absurd an Idea it is to regulate how many children people can have.

lol...  I like that theory...  The Earth won't be full until we're all standing shoulder to shoulder....    :laugh:

Dude...  The world will be full when we can't move all the human waste through processing plants fast enough.

Well..  We can always shoot it into space. :thumb:

How about enough food?  1st world nations will always find a way to be full.  3rd world nations are already starving...
Enough space?  Just build up.
Enough water?  The ocean is mighty big...  Just take the salt out.



Keeping pumping out lots of kids...  They'll find a way to deal with it.

I'm gonna have 10...  Maybe 15, if the wife can take it....    Maybe I'll just find a couple women and get 'em all pumping kids out........  Try and set some records here....   5 women working full time at 1 kid a year...  Over the next 20 years...  HELL YEAH!



I have faith...  Someone will find a way to feed all of us.

Your facetious remarks actually back up my point.

But I guess your right, lets just sterilize everyone "they" deem unimportant or parasitic.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect adults to exert some self control and breed only as many as they can afford to feed and raise?  :dunno_white:

No, I don't believe in sterilizing the masses, the poor, and the downtrodden, but I do believe in personal responsibility.  :thumb:

Quote from: pandy on November 16, 2006, 03:55:24 PM
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect adults to exert some self control and breed only as many as they can afford to feed and raise?  :dunno_white:

No, I don't believe in sterilizing the masses, the poor, and the downtrodden, but I do believe in personal responsibility.  :thumb:

I believe you are right. It is not unreasonable to expect adults to exert some self control especially if they cannot afford children.

But it is wrong to pass laws dictating who can and cannot have children.

Just to play devil's advocate....

Say there's a disease gene that exists that when passed on to a child by BOTH parents, the disease is 100% fatal. Should it be illegal for two adults who both carry that gene knowingly to purposefully bring a child into the world that they know will with certainty suffer and die?

(Nope, I don't know of any diseases this bad, but I'm simply interested in what folks' ideas are in this hypothetical.)

illegal? NO


Laws should not discriminate on any basis.  Passing one law restricting "certain" people from having children for ANY reason, potentially restricts "everyones" rights.


It would be Immoral to purposefully bring a child into the world that they know will certainty suffer and die. Making it illegal for these Hypothetical people to procreate is unecessary.

Quote from: pandy on November 17, 2006, 08:47:55 AMthe disease is 100% fatal.

You mean Life?  100% fatal.

 :laugh: Ok....so we all have the same 100% fatal disease....I mean a 100% disease where a child is dead by, say, the time s/he's 6 months old, after suffering a painful and short existence.  :flipoff:

Absoutely not.  As long as that diseased child doesn't infringe on my or anyone else's liberties then why should it be illegal?  So the government can punish the parents for doing a cruel and immoral thing?  I don't think that government should waste time dictating morality. 

The right to life is unquestionable. But are the parents able to sustain that life from infancy onward 'til maturity? Are you asking for Govermental dictated Socialism?

You see.........communal caring (which I love and believe in), and freely giving is a lot different than the "Government" FORCING taxpayers to support orphans in Ethiopia which means the money will end up in the hands of a communist dictator that wants the orphans to die anyway.
This is where your "New World Order" is headed. All under the guise of "helping others". That is the "way" it is "put to you" and harps on your sympathies.

Remember Ethiopia. 100's upon 100's of THOUSANDS of men, women, and children dead and dying, with their bodies stacked up like cordwood. Starving to death. WE (the United States) sent tons upon TONS of food and the Government troops let it set at the holding area until it rotted away and would KILL anyone near it. While allthewhile their dirt poor pitiful (this is what you were spoonfed) Government.....................threw a THREE MILLION DOLLAR BLOWOUT for the visiting COMMUNIST PARTY from Russia. Their "Brothers" in crime.

CASIUSA and I had a longggggggg discussion way into the night years ago about this. If we'd sent people "in" to kill those sorry bastards (as they needed to be put to death ASAP) then we'd've been "oppressors" of a foreign regime. If we'd've done "nothing", we'd've been worthless, uncaring bastards.  So what do you do? You give. And then watch what you've given get gasoline poured on it. Yeah..........I've got a problem "giving" to "some". And I have NO problems with our troops going over and pouring napalm on the palace of a sorry ass communist motherfucker. f%$k what "the world" thinks.

 When you look at it that way it is easy to justify "kill(ing) those sorry bastards"
When you allow yourself to believe a situation like that is hopeless, then decide to just kill em all,  You in turn become no better than the sorry ass communist motherf%$ker you intend to do away with.

I am not saying every situation can be solved diplomatically, of course not. But making an attempt to help those Humans in need is not a fallacy.

OMW I do not disagree with your reasoning. If your facts are straight, I'd be the first with the napalm. But allow me to draw your attention to Ben Franklins quote one more time. Unless you truely believe one race of humans is superior to all others, it is not hard to take a second andconsider the situation as one of them then try to find a solution. Instead of just killing them.  yup. even commies.

Quote from: 3imo on November 01, 2006, 11:27:56 AM
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.