How long before human population control must be introduced?

Forums › Off topic › How long before human population control must be introduced?

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#169731 24-Mar-2015 10:31

Just reading a scifi book and part of the background world is that earth has introduced strict population control, as well as a requirement that you must work for 2 years to prove to the government (in this case, the UN is running the world) that you are worth educating and thus employing, otherwise you get 'basic' which is as it sounds - basic income that will afford you no significant luxury at all but you don't work for it.

It struck me that the single biggest environmental threat on earth is humanity yet it is pretty much the only one that no one is seriously attempting to address. Indeed, many countries have tax systems etc that positively encourage breeding rather than discouraging it.

How much longer do you think it will be before the UN/OECD/whoever makes a serious attempt to address the issue or do you think it will never happen?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

5695 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1630
Inactive user

#1266561 24-Mar-2015 10:34

can't see it happening myself

wasabi2k

2102 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 860

#1266571 24-Mar-2015 10:38

Reading this after reading some of your other opinions makes for some scary reading man... anyway.

The short answer is never. Unless a "worldwide" authoritarian government (a la the hegemony in Ender's Game, emperor in WH40k etc) takes over there will never be worldwide anything. I don't see this happening without a major worldwide disaster or threat (alien invasion, resource shortgage, nuclear winter). Even then it's doubtful. Public resistance to the government controlling things like having kids will mean no democratic government would ever be able to do it.

Until then you might see powerless directives which nations may or may not pretend to try to work with - as we did with Kyoto Protocol, while developing nations such as India, China or some African nations ignore them completely.

I think we will see greater advances in our abilities to produce more with less, higher density housing (hopefully not to forge world levels) and other technology solutions.

That or the complete break-down of all socio-economic systems and the inevitable destruction of the human race.

Edit: Any system that is merit-based (meritocracy) is in itself a fiction, written by people of usually above average intelligence who think that if people like them made the decisions the world would be a better place. Such systems are common in science fiction, because that is the only place they could ever exist. It also usually feeds into the common fantasy that you are better/smarter than everyone else, they just don't know it - when in reality chances are you are mostly average - that is how stats work.

Democratic governments rely on the popular vote, which by definition will favour the majority, which isn't the above average. Reality will come into play and someone will have to define the criteria for the merit based system, measure and judge - and those people are fallible.

The only reality in which such a thing could work is if an AI took over, then you would have to deal with a real meritocracy - and I don't think many people would like that.

lokhor

2858 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 171

Trusted

#1266576 24-Mar-2015 10:41

What book is it?

All comments are my own opinion, and not that of my employer unless explicitly stated.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1266582 24-Mar-2015 10:45

I think it has to happen or the collapse of civilisation is inevitable. Especially if every time nature tries to exert control (e.g. influenza, ebola etc) we minimise the impact.

NZ has plenty of space for now and fortunately shares no easily navigable borders, but you only have to look at places like Europe and the US/Mexico areas to see what happens socially and politically when pressure is put on borders that are porous - and neither of those areas are yet close to their maximum saturation.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1266583 24-Mar-2015 10:46

lokhor: What book is it?

It's a space opera series called The Expanse by James S A Corey.

wasabi2k

2102 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 860

#1266586 24-Mar-2015 10:48

Geektastic: I think it has to happen or the collapse of civilisation is inevitable. Especially if every time nature tries to exert control (e.g. influenza, ebola etc) we minimise the impact.

NZ has plenty of space for now and fortunately shares no easily navigable borders, but you only have to look at places like Europe and the US/Mexico areas to see what happens socially and politically when pressure is put on borders that are porous - and neither of those areas are yet close to their maximum saturation.

You are applying a future situation (massive population explosion) to today's technology, soci-political and economic environments.

You can see similar fears being raised throughout history - couple that with our rapidly accelerating pace of scientific achievement and it is very difficult to make judgements like that.

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

Hammerer

2480 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 802

Lifetime subscriber

#1266590 24-Mar-2015 10:51

Seriously, did you even look before you said "No one is seriously attempting to address" it!?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_catastrophic_risk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_population_control
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organisations_campaigning_for_population_stabilisation

It's been happening for a long time. There are many programmes addressing the related issues of population, mortality, poverty, contraception and fertility. There is hardly an aid organisation that doesn't have some policy or goal that has a primary or secondary impact of stabilising population.

The best way I've seen to reduce population growth is to make people more affluent. That works really well because wealth reduces the impact of many of the risks that drive people to have large families. Urbanisation has a similar but less marked impact.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1266595 24-Mar-2015 10:55

wasabi2k:
Geektastic: I think it has to happen or the collapse of civilisation is inevitable. Especially if every time nature tries to exert control (e.g. influenza, ebola etc) we minimise the impact.

NZ has plenty of space for now and fortunately shares no easily navigable borders, but you only have to look at places like Europe and the US/Mexico areas to see what happens socially and politically when pressure is put on borders that are porous - and neither of those areas are yet close to their maximum saturation.

You are applying a future situation (massive population explosion) to today's technology, soci-political and economic environments.

You can see similar fears being raised throughout history - couple that with our rapidly accelerating pace of scientific achievement and it is very difficult to make judgements like that.

On the other hand, it will be even harder to deal with the longer it is left undiscussed. There must be an acceptable limit (in terms of basic planetary support, social cohesion, quality of life and so on). Predictions of 11 billion within 150 years are now being made.

Dingbatt

6804 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3694

Lifetime subscriber

#1266596 24-Mar-2015 10:55

Search "agenda 21". That should fill you in.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

ubergeeknz

3344 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1041

Trusted

Vocus

#1266597 24-Mar-2015 10:56

the collapse of civilisation is inevitable

Yes it is. And that's the only way things will change.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1266598 24-Mar-2015 10:58

Hammerer: Seriously, did you even look before you said "No one is seriously attempting to address" it!?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_catastrophic_risk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_population_control
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organisations_campaigning_for_population_stabilisation

It's been happening for a long time. There are many programmes addressing the related issues of population, mortality, poverty, contraception and fertility. There is hardly an aid organisation that doesn't have some policy or goal that has a primary or secondary impact of stabilising population.

The best way I've seen to reduce population growth is to make people more affluent. That works really well because wealth reduces the impact of many of the risks that drive people to have large families. Urbanisation has a similar but less marked impact.

It doesn't really get reflected in a lot of places though, does it? It's easy to see why families in poor nations are large. Less easy to see (in light of the above etc) why governments in many western nations give tax incentives to increase the population (apart from, cynically, wanting to farm more taxpayers...!)

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

Wheelbarrow01

1784 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2638

Trusted

Chorus

#1266608 24-Mar-2015 11:15

How much longer do you think it will be before the UN/OECD/whoever makes a serious attempt to address the issue or do you think it will never happen?

I believe Gareth Morgan already has the answer to your question.......

The 2006 movie Idiocracy is either just satire, or a dire prediction of our future. The really scary thing is I am not sure which.

The views expressed by me are not necessarily those of my employer Chorus NZ Ltd

wasabi2k

2102 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 860

#1266613 24-Mar-2015 11:17

Wheelbarrow01:
How much longer do you think it will be before the UN/OECD/whoever makes a serious attempt to address the issue or do you think it will never happen?

The 2006 movie Idiocracy is either just satire, or a dire prediction of our future. The really scary thing is I am not sure which.

I had had the same thought after watching the intro.

Inphinity

2780 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1184

#1266615 24-Mar-2015 11:19

This is why space projects need more funding. There's plenty of room on other astronomical objects.

wasabi2k

2102 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 860

#1266616 24-Mar-2015 11:20

Geektastic: It's easy to see why families in poor nations are large. Less easy to see (in light of the above etc) why governments in many western nations give tax incentives to increase the population (apart from, cynically, wanting to farm more taxpayers...!)

I'd suggest you use examples or sources when making statements like this - otherwise they come across as sweeping generalizations with nothing to back them up.

You clearly have strong opinions on the poor - which is fine, but if you are trying to make a point you really need to back it up with something. You are reducing very complex issues to a single liner.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5