How would you deal with overpopulation

[Npoess]

in the west the problem isn't too many babies.. it's the too many oldies

 

everyone needs to smoke and drink themselves to an early grave, but sadly things are going the other way.

 

You're starting to sound exactly like my old neurotic social studies teacher:

 

"You've lived and a long and hardworking life… now lay down and die please! You definitely do not deserve a few nice years of relaxing in the final years of your life, how could you even think that!?"

 

etc. etc. etc.

 

Also… he was a fucking fascist. I still wonder how he got his job.

 

But you have a point, one of my own country's biggest problems is there will be a shortage of younger people to take care of the elderly in the future. Which is kind of frightening to think about.

[joshuatxuk]

lol at Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, and Uganda.

 

Burkina Faso: 6

Mali: 6.25

Niger: 7.03

Uganda: 6.06

 

Suprisingly India and Mexico are both pretty low...

 

Mexico's dropped significantly after the 1970s, from 6.72 to 2.1 http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/08/opinion/la-oe-last-demographics-immigration-20130208 So has immigration from Mexico actually. Mexican-Americans have higher birthrates but those are slipping too: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323375204578270053387770718

 

More here and here

 

Who mentioned live expectancy increases as the problem? That was a great point. Same problem is draining medicare and social security, both of which need tremendous reform and restructuring.

 

Use and acceptance of contraceptives is fairly high, which is why so much opposition to it (mostly religious and conservative driven) in any form is so alarming. The U.S. and other industrial nations with said political opposition could backslide tremendously as a result, and the poor and socially disadvantaged will suffer first.

[Npoess]

I actually do not believe the future is as bleak as some are predicting. People have been predicting the coming apocalypse since the beginning of times.

 

I believe that science and technology will save us. We have (or will) become far enough advanced to solve a lot of problems:

 

• Gene splicing of food
• Green energy, electric cars, etc. (obviously the solution for the oil and pollution problems)
• Some researchers in UK are working on a plasma reactor that is trying to "copy the sun". If this works, it would mean almost unlimited energy and the end to a lot pollution worries: http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/07/europes-jet-set-ponders-future-worlds-largest-fusion-reactor
• Astroid mining is starting more and more to look like a viable option. And who knows, if that is possible, the next thing might be planetary mining (or maybe I have just watched too many movies) http://theweek.com/article/index/246086/how-asteroid-mining-could-add-trillions-to-the-world-economy

And further cooperation between countries would be the option for these things to happen.

Obviously some of these things would take huge adjustments to our societies and lifes. And I hope we will start to see that to a larger extent in coming years. The biggest problem at the moment lies with the US, I really hope to see some improvements to their energy consumption: "americans make up only 5% of the world's population and yet consume 20% of its energy" http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/population_energy

 

But if we solved a lot of our problems, that would not mean that people should be allowed to have as many babies as they want, I do believe there will be need to be a child-cap limit, who really needs 4 children anyways? Having more than 3 children just seems and a bit irresponsible to me. Modern people are not able, or have the time, to raise that many children anyways. And if they do, they are neither thinking about their careers or the well-being of their other children.

 

And obviously not everyone is going to have children, that's the trend in western cultures at least, so a child-cap limit on one would probably be too much. But the child-cap limit has worked for China, so it's an effective and the least inhuman option if some drastic change is necessary (and I don't know if it is?) http://www.indexmundi.com/G/g.aspx?v=24&c=ch&l=en

[BobDobalina]

you bring up a lot of interesting points Cee. I'm less concerned with overpopulation than with the capitalist dogma that we must strive to continue to "grow" economies in a world of finite resources. Does not compute.

 

As a professional engineer by day (civil/environmental) with a healthy interest in futurism, cosmology, etc., I must admit that I'm largely pessimistic about our ability to engineer our way out of global problems. Would love to be proven wrong, but nuclear fusion has been "right around the corner" for well over 50 years now, and stuff like green energy and electric cars are mere drops in the bucket.

 

Also people are so romanced by the notion of expanding out into space that its rarely discussed how grossly uneconomical it is with our current technology - in monetary terms it would still be cheaper to build a solid gold statue of Neil Armstrong than to send a person to the moon. This short documentary on space elevators by James May is quite good, although the engineering obstacles to overcome for such a endeavor are still significant:

 

[Npoess]

Then you probably know a whole lot more than I do. I just heard it on a podcast, that is usually a very reliable source, that nuclear fusion is not many years from completion. It's not a guarantee it will work, but there's good chance. I really hope it will.

 

I agree, we would also have to rethink our capitalist ways, and I don't have an answer for how we are going to do that, because it seems hard to imagine people will ever sufficiently change, unless they have a knife to their throats (and metaphorically that knife is the threat of the ending of the world and most people doesn't even seem properly to understand the problems we're facing).

 

Especially the talk about "green growth" seems kind of backwards and illogical to me. We can't have both, we have to choose between the two. And maybe if we choose green and not growth, that could actually mean "green growth" in the long run. But not choosing growth (and therefore having less much money for material belongings) is never an popular choice with voters, so it will probably never happen.

[Guest]

KEEP ON PRAYING

[joshuatxuk]

you bring up a lot of interesting points Cee. I'm less concerned with overpopulation than with the capitalist dogma that we must strive to continue to "grow" economies in a world of finite resources. Does not compute.

 

As a professional engineer by day (civil/environmental) with a healthy interest in futurism, cosmology, etc., I must admit that I'm largely pessimistic about our ability to engineer our way out of global problems. Would love to be proven wrong, but nuclear fusion has been "right around the corner" for well over 50 years now, and stuff like green energy and electric cars are mere drops in the bucket.

 

Also people are so romanced by the notion of expanding out into space that its rarely discussed how grossly uneconomical it is with our current technology - in monetary terms it would still be cheaper to build a solid gold statue of Neil Armstrong than to send a person to the moon. This short documentary on space elevators by James May is quite good, although the engineering obstacles to overcome for such a endeavor are still significant:

 

 

Space Odyssey 3001 was my intro to the concept, among other futuristic concepts.

 

You hit on my major concern: that so many arbitrary ideologies, specifically capitalism, undermine a lot. I suppose an implosion of the status quo global economy is inevitable, and hopefully that would usher in more pragmatic and focused tech development. Green tech is hilariously profit and investment oriented in the short-term, it's no wonder it's trivialized. I'm optimistic about humanity's survival and eventual improvement, just pessimistic of it happening soon and/or through the current global socio-economic state.

[YangYing]

Money is sooo shit.

[luke viia]

Especially the talk about "green growth" seems kind of backwards and illogical to me. We can't have both, you have to choose between the two. And maybe if we chose green and not growth, that could actually mean "green growth" in the long run. But not choosing growth (and therefore not having as much money for material consumption) is way to an unpopular choice for the voters, so it will probably never happen.

Glad you came to this conclusion. IMO the phrase "sustainable development" is a joke. After the phrase initially made its debut with the Brundtland report something like twenty years ago (the date eludes me), no one even had a solid idea of what it meant for years. The ICC gave a more formal definition later: "sustainable development combines environmental protection with economic growth and development." Now, most of the time we hear about "eco-efficiency" when looking at "sustainable developments" like LEED certified buildings, new plastics, new energy resources, etc. The people who coined that term, the "Business Council for Sustainable Development," defined it as "adding maximum value with minimum resource use and minimum pollution." Their perspective is that the corporate leaders of today should see eco-efficiency as their primary response to the demand for sustainable development.

 

What that means is, the incredibly complex societal problem of creating "sustainable development" was co-opted into an "efficiency" race, a purely technical problem of producing more with less. That could be a very temporary win-win for business and the environment alike, but it is really seriously questionable whether improving efficiency of technologies is a long-term solution to global environmental issues. Efficiencies have thermodynamic (and practical, economic) limits, and cannot endlessly increase our affluence. The estimates I've read for the maximum gains in eco-efficiences are something like 5 fold from where we are now.

 

If economic growth continues at the rate of 2-3% GDP per year, then in 100 years the size of the economy will have grown something like 12-19 times. The gains by efficiences ("sustainable development") cannot combat this, and we will continue to use more and more resources - recycling is not even an efficient process at this point - and pollute the environment. Sustainable isn't the word for it.

[eugene]

economic growth is measured in value (money) not in tonnes of shit produced from earth's resources. in the same sense capitalist (?) idea about strife for growth doesn't mean strife for more and more usage of resources, it's a stupid misconception populated by zeitgeistards.

[luke viia]

Of course the goal isn't using more resources. Don't think I said it was.... the goal is increased value/wealth, as you said. What I just said was that the goal of producing more value will use more resources (and I explained a few reasons why...), therefore sustainable development isn't sustainable.

 

Consider, for example, that increased technology efficiency almost always drives up the resource it was designed to curb consumption of. As an example: more gas efficient cars do not mean that less gasoline will be used, on the contrary more people see gas as cheaper and drive more often, driving gasoline consumption up. The same thing happens when any technology is made more efficient; without laws specifying personal resource use and limiting it, that will likely often be the case. More resources will be used. That isn't the goal, it is the outcome.

[luke viia]

BTW I'm thinking "zeitgeistards" are exactly the people I'm arguing against here. From what I understand they wish for a technical, scientific, global system, and believe that science will dictate our moral philosophy. No thanks.

 

No offense, Bread.

[eugene]

What I just said was that the goal of producing more value will use more resources (and I explained a few reasons why...), therefore sustainable development isn't sustainable.

why ? if you agree that this is a question of value than it shouldn't be hard to imagine how to make more value from using less and less resources, as value is not objective but socially constructed.

[luke viia]

already explained why. it is not hard to imagine creating more value out of less resources, but you still use resources, and if growth is part of this, you will use more resources as you grow even if efficiences improve alongside the growth. you cannot continue to create value out of thin air. the increase in economic growth will eventually dwarf any possible attempts at increasing efficiency, therefore, resource consumption will go up with value creation over time. currently most "cost benefit analyses" we do discount the future costs, giving us a warped sense of the value actually being created, and we are not accounting for true cost. I would argue very little net "value" is being created (as you say, it's a social thing) but the resources are nonetheless being taken.

 

anyway not trying to have a 3 day match with you again, and I know I always say that, but unless you have your own perspective I'm not really interested in being questioned all weekend, just wanted to share my opinion w/ Ceerial.

[YangYing]

We just want more and more, to expand, to research, to explore, have more things, etc.

 

It doesn't work. We can't provide all the people in the world with food, health, water and security. We are too many, there is not enough.

 

edit:

 

 

BoC is telling me everything will be ok though, I hear it... In the sounds.

 

[Guest]

To answer the initial question on a more serious note:

 

I am sure there is some super fucked up virus 12-monkeys style laying around somewhere. Release it on strategic hubs and see the problem of overpopulation wade itself out.

 

Alternatively just sit it out: I know that I've shouted "kill humanity: we are the plague" or some variations of that in the past, but yeah.. Nature will put a stop to us if we really get out of hand. Human arrogance that we are bigger and better than nature is the ultimate flaw in our perception.

 

Also remember that Gaia has healed herself in the past for countless of times; she's born out of stardust, has survived meteor impacts, created ice ages, floods and immense droughts and heats. She'll survive.

 

 

 

 

-edit- spelling

[eugene]

already explained why. it is not hard to imagine creating more value out of less resources, but you still use resources, and if growth is part of this, you will use more resources as you grow even if efficiences improve alongside the growth. you cannot continue to create value out of thin air. the increase in economic growth will eventually dwarf any possible attempts at increasing efficiency, therefore, resource consumption will go up with value creation over time. currently most "cost benefit analyses" we do discount the future costs, giving us a warped sense of the value actually being created, and we are not accounting for true cost. I would argue very little net "value" is being created (as you say, it's a social thing) but the resources are nonetheless being taken.

 

anyway not trying to have a 3 day match with you again, and I know I always say that, but unless you have your own perspective I'm not really interested in being questioned all weekend, just wanted to share my opinion w/ Ceerial.

there's a margin where "less and less" becomes sustainable, it's already easy to imagine with food. don't see why it can't be done with other types of goods, it's a matter of technological development. you're getting stuck in some weird doom-techno-economical determinism, i guess it's a more cautious position to take, but it's not too useful analytically.

[OneToThirtySix]

Procreation licensing based on IQ, literacy, and sympathy testing. Two-digit IQ's with a reading level of public education and no capacity for emotional attachment need not apply.

[YangYing]

Going in a bit of a tangent here, but it really pisses me off the way the media, governments and other entities handle this and many other big problems:

 

overpopulation is almost a taboo, you never hear a high entity taking a serious train of thought or making relevant actions towards it.

 

I feel the same with environmental issues. Yes, we have green energy and talk a lot about "sustainable development" (that as people have already pointed out here is bullshit), but I don't feel that enough people are actually taking it seriously, taking some form of relevant initiative towards these problems.

 

"We must save the Earth" I see that fucking everywhere nowadays and it's so, so wrong. Earth will be fine, we must save ourselves.

 

 

sorry, just brainstorming here

 

[Guest aeser]

No one would like it but I'd make having a child without a license illegal, punishable by forced abortion if you're too irresponsible to not use one of the shitloads of forms of birth control to prevent it in the first place. To be licensed you'd have to meet a certain quota for being "the best and brightest" intellect/health/physically/creatively/whatever since if we're going to limit who can continue our species it really might as well be the best of us. I have no issue with my genes being phased out either. There's too many fucking people and face it most of us are shit.

[Npoess]

Procreation licensing based on IQ, literacy, and sympathy testing. Two-digit IQ's with a reading level of public education and no capacity for emotional attachment need not apply.

 

Now we're talking.

 

Fertility and intelligence does not go hand in hand, unfortunately.

[Guest]

Going in a bit of a tangent here, but it really pisses me off the way the media, governments and other entities handle this and many other big problems: overpopulation is almost a taboo, you never hear a high entity taking a serious train of thought or making relevant actions towards it. I feel the same with environmental issues. Yes, we have green energy and talk a lot about "sustainable development" (that as people have already pointed out here is bullshit), but I don't feel that enough people are actually taking it seriously, taking some form of relevant initiative towards these problems. "We must save the Earth" I see that fucking everywhere nowadays and it's so, so wrong. Earth will be fine, we must save ourselves.

sorry, just brainstorming here

 

don't apologise! you've hit a vital nerve in this whole debate: nobody wants to talk about this. it can be considered as deep politics: summarily ignored and/or denied because the consequences for actually facing this problem head on is just too much to deal with for most people.

[YangYing]

Procreation licensing based on IQ, literacy, and sympathy testing. Two-digit IQ's with a reading level of public education and no capacity for emotional attachment need not apply.

 

Now we're talking

Holy fucking shit.

 

 

I'm scared

 

[Npoess]

This is getting a bit nazi...

 

And this is properly going to sound wrong no matter how way I try say it: but the fact that the stupider you are, the chances of you having children are bigger, that is something to think about.

 

I remember seeing this documentary once on two people that should never have been allowed to become parents in the first place. They did neither have the intelligence or empathy to raise a child. The consequence was that the child grew up with all sorts of mental issues. And what happens next? They get another child and the story repeats itself. And the world does definitely not need more people with issues. I've kind of had a zero tolerance opinion to all people being allowed to have kids, just because it's a "human right", after watching that. It should not be a human right if you are responsible for ruining a person for the rest of their lives.

[Guest]

This is getting a bit nazi...

fuck you, fascist cis scum

 

jokes aside: whenever someone comes with a pretty way to clean up the very real problem of overpopulation it's deemed nazi. I'm not blaiming you for thinking like that, but i'm just wondering what's the real altruistic thing to do: let population go unchecked which inevitably makes humanity use up all the resources like the locust they are and then die or prevent this by wading out the gene pool?

 

it's a tricky question.