YangYing Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Very, very tricky. But one that needs an answer, pronto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 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 no kidding. Funny how quickly "equality before the law" drops by the wayside with some people. Some pigs are more equal than others. I think a limit of 2 kids per couple, with any additional kid requiring a progressive tax based on income, as suggested earlier in this thread, is all you need. It also removes the specter of forced abortions, as any kids people "just happen to have" are taxed, heavily, rather than killed off. That's what happens in China; plenty of people have "black (market) babies", but eventually the govt. finds out at some point - most people want their kids to go to school, for example - and then you get hit with the tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest boo Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 these stupid successful procreators have some good genetic qualities. they tend to be very aggressive/high testosterone and are good at making babies. really you'll want these people around when it's us vs google. or maybe you guys will be google robots by the then i'll be dead so whatev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zaphod Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 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 no kidding. Funny how quickly "equality before the law" drops by the wayside with some people. Some pigs are more equal than others. I think a limit of 2 kids per couple, with any additional kid requiring a progressive tax based on income, as suggested earlier in this thread, is all you need. It also removes the specter of forced abortions, as any kids people "just happen to have" are taxed, heavily, rather than killed off. That's what happens in China; plenty of people have "black (market) babies", but eventually the govt. finds out at some point - most people want their kids to go to school, for example - and then you get hit with the tax. i think the two kids thing is a good rule. no real reason to have more than two. i am interested in something though: doesn't china have a large deficit of females at the moment? because most people want a son around to carry on the legacy? i thought i read that there's something like 50 million single men who are basically going to be bachelors for life, and that money and class basically determines whether or not you find a mate. maybe that's a cultural thing, but it seems like kind of a bad way to live. although a lot of what i read about china seems like a bummer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Npoess Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 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. I agree and I'm honestly getting sick of the "green growth" or "sustainable development" talk by politicians. It has just become political buzzwords at this point, without any real meaning or action to them. If anyone is really serious about a more green and sufficient policy that would mean radical change, and just not small adjustments to our current ways of life and systems. I'm not talking about some revolution or anything like that, but just lifestyle changes that everyone would need to make. And I'm not sure that would work in a highly capitalistic world obsessed with economic growth. A side note is that where I live there was talks about a new garbage system, where everybody would have to sort your garbage in something like 10 different garbage cans to make recycling more efficient. I personally liked the idea, but a lot people didn't want to do it because it was too much a "pain in the ass". If people can't even make a small adjustment like that, then I fear for the future. I'm just a bit tired of small-minded people only concerned with what happens in their own backyard, which I'm pretty much surrounded by. 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. Yeah, true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 i think the two kids thing is a good rule. no real reason to have more than two. i am interested in something though: doesn't china have a large deficit of females at the moment? because most people want a son around to carry on the legacy? i thought i read that there's something like 50 million single men who are basically going to be bachelors for life, and that money and class basically determines whether or not you find a mate. maybe that's a cultural thing, but it seems like kind of a bad way to live. although a lot of what i read about china seems like a bummer. yeah just did a google search and it says 40 million (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/mar/09/china.justinmccurry) but regardless it's a lot. Which is strange because all the guys I know have girlfriends and/or wives. Also makes me wonder about the whole hooker/ktv girl thing. But I guess that's the tragedy, the girls are chasing the money while the poor losers cook ramen.. tl; dr: can't see any sign of the gender imbalance in my daily life but I have no reason to think it's not accurate. I'm curious about the demographics of this; I bet a lot of the single guys are actually in the countryside.. my daughter is so gonna get raped when she's older, I'll have to be fighting them off with a chainsaw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 i think the two kids thing is a good rule. no real reason to have more than two. i am interested in something though: doesn't china have a large deficit of females at the moment? because most people want a son around to carry on the legacy? i thought i read that there's something like 50 million single men who are basically going to be bachelors for life, and that money and class basically determines whether or not you find a mate. maybe that's a cultural thing, but it seems like kind of a bad way to live. although a lot of what i read about china seems like a bummer. yeah just did a google search and it says 40 million (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/mar/09/china.justinmccurry) but regardless it's a lot. Which is strange because all the guys I know have girlfriends and/or wives. Also makes me wonder about the whole hooker/ktv girl thing. But I guess that's the tragedy, the girls are chasing the money while the poor losers cook ramen.. tl; dr: can't see any sign of the gender imbalance in my daily life but I have no reason to think it's not accurate. I'm curious about the demographics of this; I bet a lot of the single guys are actually in the countryside.. my daughter is so gonna get raped when she's older, I'll have to be fighting them off with a chainsaw it might be because many of those millions are stuck in the western provinces with fuck all for hope and no chance of it in the future under increasing surveillance. #fuckthePRCgovernment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soloman Tump Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 When a population gets too high in the natural world, a disease or new predator will generally muscle in and balance things out, rabbits get myxomitosis (? Sp), lions breed more cubs to curb the extra rabbits etc. So what I'm saying. When there too many of us we will all get the plague and there will be shitloads of bad animals out to get us. "Nature will find a way" Dr Malcolm, isla nubar Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YangYing Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 When a population gets too high in the natural world, a disease or new predator will generally muscle in and balance things out, rabbits get myxomitosis (? Sp), lions breed more cubs to curb the extra rabbits etc.So what I'm saying.When there too many of us we will all get the plague and there will be shitloads of bad animals out to get us. "Nature will find a way"Dr Malcolm, isla nubarSent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk I mentioned it before, "no population grows forever" I think nature will find a way more subtle way to deal with us tough. We are destroying ourselves, and we probably will end up solving the problem- the good way, or the bad way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 When a population gets too high in the natural world, a disease or new predator will generally muscle in and balance things out, rabbits get myxomitosis (? Sp), lions breed more cubs to curb the extra rabbits etc. So what I'm saying. When there too many of us we will all get the plague and there will be shitloads of bad animals out to get us. "Nature will find a way" Dr Malcolm, isla nubar Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk nature has no purpose or design plan whatever happens, happens. You talk as if there's a god and it sounds ridiculous. By the way - loads of unscientific comments in this thread when people discuss human behaviour. So many ludicrous ideas as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nebraska Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ9jaLshxIU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadameChaos Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 He's talking about about the law of chaos applied to nature and it's a well documented fact. Usually in terms of say an animal group growing larger and causing a lack of food then naturally depleting. Humans tend to really mess with this principal however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 When a population gets too high in the natural world, a disease or new predator will generally muscle in and balance things out, rabbits get myxomitosis (? Sp), lions breed more cubs to curb the extra rabbits etc. So what I'm saying. When there too many of us we will all get the plague and there will be shitloads of bad animals out to get us. "Nature will find a way" Dr Malcolm, isla nubar Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk nature has no purpose or design plan whatever happens, happens. You talk as if there's a god and it sounds ridiculous. By the way - loads of unscientific comments in this thread when people discuss human behaviour. So many ludicrous ideas as well. You talk as if there is no God and it's ridiculous. The idea of God has been seriously polluted by organized religion, and this void of atheism is a logical response to that defilement, but I still think it's silly to denounce the Idea of God, just because there is no proof for it. Answer me this: how did it all come into existence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aeser Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 I think a limit of 2 kids per couple, with any additional kid requiring a progressive tax based on income, as suggested earlier in this thread, is all you need. It also removes the specter of forced abortions, as any kids people "just happen to have" are taxed, heavily, rather than killed off. That's what happens in China; plenty of people have "black (market) babies", but eventually the govt. finds out at some point - most people want their kids to go to school, for example - and then you get hit with the tax. this would do jack shit to curtail the problem. couples being allowed to have 2 kids in theory allows society to go from 7 billion to 14 billion in 1 generation with no discouragement whatsoever when the direction we need to head towards is a global population of around 1 billion max. the majority of the overpopulation going on at the moment is in rural china and rural india where people are not under the watchful eyes of the government the way you're used to thinking about from a developed area, these people will continue to procreate because it is in their self interest to do so (in rural communities, more hands to farm with/etc.=more resources for your family, etc.). like i said no one would like it but what is NEEDED is a forced reduction in population. i'm not saying we should kill people off, people will eventually die anyway on their own, but you need to limit how many more people we're putting into the world in a controlled way until it gets to a sane level again. i do not think people have a right to shit more humans into the world considering what humans have already done in the way of destruction to this planet, and being the resource gluttons they're inevitably going to be, and simply not having the resources to even continue the population we have today let alone if it exponentially increases. it of course will be seen as "nazi-like" though i am NOT talking about any kind of racial or religious/xenophobic basis for the qualifications, simply a test of how fit your genetics are to carry on our species since we need to start severely limiting who can be allowed to have children, based on what would have to be universally accepted criteria such as intelligence, health, physical fitness, perhaps immunity to some diseases/etc. if we're going to limit the population as we should we should do everything we can to improve the chances for the species going forward so that the only genes that get passed on are the best ones we have. that used to be how evolution worked, but now we live firmly outside of that reality in the reality of idiocracy where any dumbshit can crap a kid into the world without any care for its upbringing, or resources available for it or anything. for example right now in the US there are 3 job seekers for every 1 available job, there are many reasons for this but the underlying reality which is not likely to change but rather just get worse is there are just too many fucking people and not enough sustainable resources to support their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 ?? Ehm, I think you have your figures wrong. If all couples have two children on average, population size is stable. Two persons having two kids kinda results in the same amount of people in the next generation (parents die, two grown up kids remain. you started with two and you end with two). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 In reality it said somewhere that the average can be 2,3 per family for a stable population size, i believe. someone correct me if i'm wrong. but the reason is that in reality there's an amount of people who die before giving birth, so the people who do get to make a couple of kids, can make ,3 more on average to stay safe on population size thing. kinda logical, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 and where does this 1 billion max. number come from? any research calculated 1 billion is optimal? linky? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 yes, it varies from country to country obviously. also while pretty much everything aeser said is completely retarded, there can be a lag in population growth halt resulting in a population hike after enforcing 2 children rule worldwide. theoretically if people who haven't had babies yet will decide to make their 2 babies in a short period of time, this might outpace death rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azatoth Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 To those for some sort of IQ/genetic test for who will be fit to breed. Who would be the ones deciding what factors are important? Would only those capable of creating some sort of supermen with no genetic deficiencies be allowed to breed or would certain genetic flaws be accepted, but which ones? Not to mention that IQ tests have their problems when it comes to measuring something as nebulous as intelligence. And if such a population control would be implemented, how would it be enforced? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soloman Tump Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Yeah I was just talking about a predator-prey boom\bust cycle. Eventually there will be too many of us to sustain the ecosystem and we will run out of food and decline. Some will argue that this process is already underway in some parts of the world. Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest boo Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 e To those for some sort of IQ/genetic test for who will be fit to breed. Who would be the ones deciding what factors are important? Would only those capable of creating some sort of supermen with no genetic deficiencies be allowed to breed or would certain genetic flaws be accepted, but which ones? Not to mention that IQ tests have their problems when it comes to measuring something as nebulous as intelligence. And if such a population control would be implemented, how would it be enforced? sterilisation based on high school grades, dont tell them just send em to different rooms for flu jabs. you're trying to get in to a conversation with weirdo sociopaths, my advice is don't bother. from my point of view if you sterilised anyone who likes ideas like those.. that would could lead to a better world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest A/D Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Yeah lol at an IQ test being used to cull the population. Since IQ is an average, you'd be getting rid of 50% of everyone every time you did this. And do you really think smart people are that great? Smarter people are more likely to be depressed, more likely to have trouble kicking addictions, less likely to tolerate infrastructure-type jobs, more likely to turn out to be Morrissey, etc. I agree with the self-correcting nature of our world. If we exceed the resources we need, we'll starve and be wiped out by disease. Or maybe the climate will become unlivable for us. It'll be a hard day for our species but something else will emerge. It's happened before. I personally don't think we'll achieve equilibrium with nature on our own, but it seems possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 , more likely to turn out to be Morrissey, etc. haha I hope we can get our shit together population-wise without getting to the point where mother nature lends a hand, if only because I love nature and to actually bump up against the carrying capacity of the globe will mean we've raped all the forests and seas for basically every resource and morsel of food. and yeah in answer to the question 2 kids per couple would mean gradual population decline, actually. The replacement rate is something like 2.3, the 0.3 part of that covers ppl who die before procreating, or never procreate. So two per couple would lead to a gradual decline. I think aeser's wacky post got the carrying capacity of earth wrong as well, it's always being revised upwards, due to advances in our understanding, methods of agriculture, advances in medicine, etc. You could argue that the current 7 billion is still within the carrying capacity of earth. I'm thinking 5 bn would be a nicer number for good ol' mother earth. We could drop down to that. Conservative estimates for carrying capacity are around 2 bn, which would mean we'd have to drop a lot* *Cornell University professor David Pimentel's research shows that about 2 billion people is the number the planet can sustainably support, if everyone consumes the same amount of resources as the average European (which is less than the average American). But current predictions have the population stabilizing at over 9 bn: U.N. experts predict that world population will increase for at least the next 50 years, with a "most likely" prediction of 9 billion people by the year 2050. There probably will be additional growth beyond that. Soooo...quite a gap between 2 and 9+ billion. I'm guessing that will resolve very, very gradually (like over 1000 years gradually) as people get better educated and have fewer children. stats from here: http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/faq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke viia Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 i'm guessing war will be a well-used problem solver in the next 100 years. we have, what, over 17 thousand nuclear warheads stocked around the world? God willing, we will prevail, in peace and freedom from fear, and in true health, through the purity and essence of our natural... fluids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Candiru Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 i'm guessing war will be a well-used problem solver in the next 100 years. we have, what, over 17 thousand nuclear warheads stocked around the world? God willing, we will prevail, in peace and freedom from fear, and in true health, through the purity and essence of our natural... fluids. What is the point of having thousands of nukes? Is it a dick swing? I'm having déjà vu from some old thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.