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. 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. 

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! 

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? 

.........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? 

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.