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

20108 posts

Uber Geek

#1267201 24-Mar-2015 23:59

China have already introduced population control with the one child per family policy. So if china ends up taking over the world, we could end up population control. Wars are a good population control. Humans are there own worst enemy, so nature will take care of it in the end. At the moment it is all about money and greed, with deforestation and unsustainable pollution.

Dstarzero

272 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1267246 25-Mar-2015 06:53

Geektastic:
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.

We also have the ability to abort, and have contraception. And I think contraception is more readily available than medicine to counter the inability to conceive.

Athlonite

1828 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1267249 25-Mar-2015 07:32

Population control should have been mandatory 25 years ago in every country you should have to gain a license to have a kid just like driving a car or owning a gun

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1267270 25-Mar-2015 08:17

Aredwood:

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.

What about the poor living four families to a house? The poor living in garages, cars, tin and plywood sheds? The poor living on the streets? The poor living in rural areas with no phone, Sewage, dodgy water supply, no power? and all this is here in "paradise".

BTR

1527 posts

Uber Geek

#1267298 25-Mar-2015 08:50

Should start now IMO, there are plenty of people society doesn't need.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29724 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1267312 25-Mar-2015 09:04

how long before this thread becomes genocidal?

Geektastic

17935 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1267320 25-Mar-2015 09:23

joker97: how long before this thread becomes genocidal?

I don't think an internet discussion can become genocidal. It's just a form of conversation, like sitting on the sofa in the living room.

We could discuss it if you like though.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Geektastic

17935 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1267322 25-Mar-2015 09:24

KiwiNZ:
Aredwood:

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.

What about the poor living four families to a house? The poor living in garages, cars, tin and plywood sheds? The poor living on the streets? The poor living in rural areas with no phone, Sewage, dodgy water supply, no power? and all this is here in "paradise".

Tin and plywood sheds are called 'houses' in New Zealand aren't they? ;-)

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1267324 25-Mar-2015 09:28

Geektastic:
KiwiNZ:
Aredwood:

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.

What about the poor living four families to a house? The poor living in garages, cars, tin and plywood sheds? The poor living on the streets? The poor living in rural areas with no phone, Sewage, dodgy water supply, no power? and all this is here in "paradise".

Tin and plywood sheds are called 'houses' in New Zealand aren't they? ;-)

For some sadly yes.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79145 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1267337 25-Mar-2015 09:48

I have removed a reply that promoted eugenics.

You folks are threading a very fine line here.

andrew027

1286 posts

Uber Geek

#1267352 25-Mar-2015 10:14

KiwiNZ: What about the poor living four families to a house? The poor living in garages, cars, tin and plywood sheds? The poor living on the streets? The poor living in rural areas with no phone, Sewage, dodgy water supply, no power? and all this is here in "paradise".

And that's just post-quake Christchurch!

andrew027

1286 posts

Uber Geek

#1267406 25-Mar-2015 11:07

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

I wasn't attempting to make an argument. The thread was inspired by Geektastic reading a sci-fi novel, and I merely pointed out it made me think of a quote from a sci-fi film. Now, if I was making an argument...

Anyone suggesting taking active steps to reduce an existing population (isn't that called "culling"?) would rightly be shouted down, but with war, famine, disease, murder, child abuse, alcohol and drugs, poor driving skills... we're certainly having a go. It might be, however, that a reasonable means of controlling the population by reducing the number of births could be found. China attempted this with the "one child" family planning policy, and there may be other examples I don't know about, but with limited success - China's population is still growing.

I remember reading a sci-fi short story when I was at high school (no idea of the title or author - I read so much of this stuff when I was younger) about a future where all boys were given a "virus" before puberty that prevented their sperm from being capable of fertilising an egg. Only when they met certain criteria (married, the right kind of job, certain income level, etc.) were they given the "cure" to enable them have children. The result was that over time rich people had kids and poor people didn't, and society broke down as there was nobody left to collect the rubbish, fix toilets, serve fries in fast food restaurants, etc.

The thing is, I think people should have to meet certain criteria before they are allowed to bring a child into the world, to show that they have the ability and moral compass to look after a child and raise it in a safe, loving environment. They don't have to be rich, or live in the right suburb, but we need to reduce the appalling state of affiars concerning child abuse. Statistics show that on average, one child is killed every 5 weeks, most of them are under five (the largest group is under one), and 90% are caused by someone the child knew. Unfortunately, having a child seems to be considered a "human right" for which the parent(s) argue strongly, with little concern for the rights of the child.

Whoops - skewed off target in the last paragraph there...

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1267410 25-Mar-2015 11:11

andrew027:
KiwiNZ: What about the poor living four families to a house? The poor living in garages, cars, tin and plywood sheds? The poor living on the streets? The poor living in rural areas with no phone, Sewage, dodgy water supply, no power? and all this is here in "paradise".

And that's just post-quake Christchurch!

No, this is not just Christchurch related, it is most centres and rural/regional areas

alasta

6687 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1267490 25-Mar-2015 13:03

We neuter other animals to manage their populations so I don't see why we don't do the same for humans. It could be applied at random with the proportion of the population variable depending on the level of need for population growth or decline at a given point in time.

DarthKermit

5346 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1267521 25-Mar-2015 13:20

I can't see it ever being voluntarily introduced. China I think is the only country with a one child policy.

Perhaps in my life time (I'm nearly 45) I'll live to see natural population control because of collapses in the food chain we rely on, plus more and more wars and other conflicts over increasingly scarce resources that will also reduce population.

I have no children and have never wanted any. My only sister is 43 and has none either.

Whatifthespacekeyhadneverbeeninvented?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5