How long before human population control must be introduced?

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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1266861 24-Mar-2015 14:59

KiwiNZ: There is already population control. The economics of having a family has resulted in smaller families to the point that in many countries their birth rate is not sufficient to maintain population. NZ is close to that, remove migration out of the population growth stats and it will show we will be close to zero growth.

Western countries perhaps, but those western countries demand goods that get made in countries who's populations are sprawling and are quite happy to rape,burn and pillage mother earth to make themselves wealthy and provide westerners with their gadgets and shiney things.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

vexxxboy

4229 posts

Uber Geek

#1266870 24-Mar-2015 15:04

you should watch Utopia. British TV at it's best.

Common sense is not as common as you think.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1266871 24-Mar-2015 15:04

heylinb4nz:
KiwiNZ: There is already population control. The economics of having a family has resulted in smaller families to the point that in many countries their birth rate is not sufficient to maintain population. NZ is close to that, remove migration out of the population growth stats and it will show we will be close to zero growth.

Western countries perhaps, but those western countries demand goods that get made in countries who's populations are sprawling and are quite happy to rape,burn and pillage mother earth to make themselves wealthy and provide westerners with their gadgets and shiney things.

Not even going to bother with that.

Dstarzero

272 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1266883 24-Mar-2015 15:17

heylinb4nz:
KiwiNZ: There is already population control. The economics of having a family has resulted in smaller families to the point that in many countries their birth rate is not sufficient to maintain population. NZ is close to that, remove migration out of the population growth stats and it will show we will be close to zero growth.

Western countries perhaps, but those western countries demand goods that get made in countries who's populations are sprawling and are quite happy to rape,burn and pillage mother earth to make themselves wealthy and provide westerners with their gadgets and shiney things.

do you have a good view up there in your high horse? I certainly hope you don't have a smart phone, or anything powered by lithium ion, or jewellery, or anything made in china, india and bangladesh

Dstarzero

272 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1266899 24-Mar-2015 15:27

Geektastic:
andrew027: After reading the initial post, all I can think of is:

I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure.

Truth.

Also locusts.

and this discounts the fact that humans domesticated animals so they wont have to migrate, developed agriculture and seasonal crops so they wont have to forage anymore, built communication systems so they rarely need to leave their general area unless absolutely needed to. I think we're also the only species who tries to preserve endangered species.

Flawed argument mate

qyiet

454 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1266954 24-Mar-2015 16:13

KiwiNZ: There is already population control. The economics of having a family has resulted in smaller families to the point that in many countries their birth rate is not sufficient to maintain population. NZ is close to that, remove migration out of the population growth stats and it will show we will be close to zero growth.

KiwiNZ has hit the nail on the head here, natural limitations are already slowing growth. I was talking to a Lecturer in Environmental Science about global population yesterday, and while it is still growing the rate of growth has slowed significantly.

Every year for their first year students they calculate how much the global population grows within an hour (the length of the lecture) and this year the number was so low they went back to their notes from the same lecture 10 years ago. The flat number was about 1/2. Don't quote me on the numbers, but I think it was about 200,000 in 24 hours rather than 400,000 in 24 hours 10 years ago.

Warning: reality may differ from above post

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1266993 24-Mar-2015 16:40

Dstarzero:
heylinb4nz:
KiwiNZ: There is already population control. The economics of having a family has resulted in smaller families to the point that in many countries their birth rate is not sufficient to maintain population. NZ is close to that, remove migration out of the population growth stats and it will show we will be close to zero growth.

Western countries perhaps, but those western countries demand goods that get made in countries who's populations are sprawling and are quite happy to rape,burn and pillage mother earth to make themselves wealthy and provide westerners with their gadgets and shiney things.
do you have a good view up there in your high horse? I certainly hope you don't have a smart phone, or anything powered by lithium ion, or jewellery, or anything made in china, india and bangladesh

Guilty as charged, I am aware of the problem and also part of it... and I want my consumer goods !!!!.

for this reason we as a race are on a freight train path to oblivion, there is no way we can keep doing what we are doing at this rate.

Noel Leeming had $14 ink jets on clearance the other day. How the hell is that sustainable ? dont even get me started on throwaway smart phones and the crazy amount of packaging in consumer goods.

JWR

821 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1267021 24-Mar-2015 16:50

I don't think the ultimate population growth is as grim as many people think.

The replacement rate of most countries has declined drastically in the last few years.

Countries like India (slightly higher than NZ) and China (lower than NZ) now have comparable rates to New Zealand.

The two factors that seem most important to lowering population growth are increased wealth and better education for women.

Through almost all human history, a woman needed to have around 6 kids just to maintain the population. But, people aren't stupid. If they know their kids have a good chance at life then why have large numbers of backups. It is only a few generations since 6+ child families were common in New Zealand.

Of course people live a long time. Declines in the birthrate now, take decades to affect the final population.

It is pretty much inevitable that the world population will peak around 11 billion and then start to decline. War, disease etc. won't affect that figure significantly. That will put a lot of ecological stress on some parts of the World.

We have about 7 billion now. Asia and South America will add around another billion each, Africa will add around 2 billion.

At the moment, we have an obsession with the Middle East. Perhaps we should be concentrating more on Africa.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18537 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1267104 24-Mar-2015 20:04

qyiet:
KiwiNZ: There is already population control. The economics of having a family has resulted in smaller families to the point that in many countries their birth rate is not sufficient to maintain population. NZ is close to that, remove migration out of the population growth stats and it will show we will be close to zero growth.

KiwiNZ has hit the nail on the head here, natural limitations are already slowing growth. I was talking to a Lecturer in Environmental Science about global population yesterday, and while it is still growing the rate of growth has slowed significantly.

Every year for their first year students they calculate how much the global population grows within an hour (the length of the lecture) and this year the number was so low they went back to their notes from the same lecture 10 years ago. The flat number was about 1/2. Don't quote me on the numbers, but I think it was about 200,000 in 24 hours rather than 400,000 in 24 hours 10 years ago.

+1s - You and KiwiNZ are both about fact as opposed to wild emotion. Of course fact gets in the way of good dystopian panic, but the truth of the matter is that as the standard of living goes up, family size goes down. In poor countries, the only form of insurance is lots of children. Throughout the world, living standards are gradually improving, in some places more than others but the overall trend is up. And there is a corresponding drop in population growth. In Japan population is declining, to the point where it is seen as a crisis. The problem is self-correcting, either through reduction in population growth or catastrophic adjustment by means of disease and famine. Either way the result is the same. Nature is no dummy.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1267134 24-Mar-2015 20:48

Geektastic: 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?

They 'issue' of population control is simple to 'solve'. Make breeding humans 'wealthy' and they stop breeding large numbers of offspring.

Look at the birth rates of 'first world countries' compared to third world countries, and you'll see the birth rate is far lower in first world countries.

The same applies within countries, where 'breeding' couples have a reliable and good income, they inevitably have fewer children, where they dont have a reliable good income., they inevitably have more children.

This is why I dismiss the 'well off' who like to claim the poor should not be allowed to breed because the dont have the financial means to support their offspring. They dont, so boost their income and they'll slow down their breeding dramatically.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29675 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1267141 24-Mar-2015 20:54

around 50 years ago. hence you've missed the boat.

Geektastic

17927 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1267171 24-Mar-2015 22:12

Dstarzero:
Geektastic:
andrew027: After reading the initial post, all I can think of is:

I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure.

Truth.

Also locusts.

and this discounts the fact that humans domesticated animals so they wont have to migrate, developed agriculture and seasonal crops so they wont have to forage anymore, built communication systems so they rarely need to leave their general area unless absolutely needed to. I think we're also the only species who tries to preserve endangered species.

Flawed argument mate

We are also the only species that overcomes natural inability to conceive (a form of population control by nature) using medicine.

Geektastic

17927 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1267172 24-Mar-2015 22:13

MaxLV:
Geektastic: 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?

They 'issue' of population control is simple to 'solve'. Make breeding humans 'wealthy' and they stop breeding large numbers of offspring.

Look at the birth rates of 'first world countries' compared to third world countries, and you'll see the birth rate is far lower in first world countries.

The same applies within countries, where 'breeding' couples have a reliable and good income, they inevitably have fewer children, where they dont have a reliable good income., they inevitably have more children.

This is why I dismiss the 'well off' who like to claim the poor should not be allowed to breed because the dont have the financial means to support their offspring. They dont, so boost their income and they'll slow down their breeding dramatically.

Your problem there is that poverty is relative....the poor today are vastly wealthy compared to the poor of say 2000 years ago.

Geektastic

17927 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1267173 24-Mar-2015 22:15

kiwifidget: War, famine, disease, dropping fertility rates, public health services.... surely those are enough to keep the population down already?!

Yes and no. Look how much effort goes into minimising their effects.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#1267198 24-Mar-2015 23:53

Geektastic:
MaxLV:
Geektastic: 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?

They 'issue' of population control is simple to 'solve'. Make breeding humans 'wealthy' and they stop breeding large numbers of offspring.

Look at the birth rates of 'first world countries' compared to third world countries, and you'll see the birth rate is far lower in first world countries.

The same applies within countries, where 'breeding' couples have a reliable and good income, they inevitably have fewer children, where they dont have a reliable good income., they inevitably have more children.

This is why I dismiss the 'well off' who like to claim the poor should not be allowed to breed because the dont have the financial means to support their offspring. They dont, so boost their income and they'll slow down their breeding dramatically.

Your problem there is that poverty is relative....the poor today are vastly wealthy compared to the poor of say 2000 years ago.

The poor today compared to 200 years ago have it far better. Let alone 2000 years ago. Compare average poor person in NZ to alot of the kings and emperors throughout history. The poor today have piped hot and cold drinkable water. Piped waste water. Devices that allow you to see and talk to people on the other side of the world in real time (TV, telephones, internet). A machine that allows you to travel faster than horses are able, for longer periods of time and in better comfort (car). Life expectancy of 70 or so years old.

Even though a king or emperor a few centuries or so ago would have had access to anything available at the time. Yet the above things would have only been a dream to them. If they were even able to imagine them.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5