This planet needs depopulation

reply to post by Spooky Fox Mulder


Obviously, this wouldn't be the solution for every human being, or the entire human population would simply cease to exist after about 80 - 100 yrs. Unless of course we advance medicine so far that we make it impossible for people to die. That, in my opinion, would be a tragedy, but an interesting starting point for a sci-fi novel.

Originally posted by Spooky Fox Mulder

Originally posted by SassyCat
Whoever wants to solve overpopulation problem should start solving it with oneself - whatever the solution is.

The solution is sterilization. I'm already sterilized.

Now, your turn.

You are demonstrating effectiveness of your ideals on yourself - that's great. But, I don't see that as a solution, even though I won't have any kids in near future - I'd love to start living in a small town, or village where it would be nice to start a family and live happily. If I'd plan stay to live in this awful capital city of mine, having sex with random women as the only reward, I'd probably sterilize myself. In my opinion overcrowded cities are no place for kids, but then I would never vote for a law to control that either.

So, my solution is that people must understand their own responsibilities, even if it's the hard way. I believe one day, in maybe 1 year or a million years, people will not just live to breed like animals. One just can't control absolutely everything.

Originally posted by Isaac Tanner Madsen
reply to post by Spooky Fox Mulder

 

Obviously, this wouldn't be the solution for every human being, or the entire human population would simply cease to exist after about 80 - 100 yrs. Unless of course we advance medicine so far that we make it impossible for people to die. That, in my opinion, would be a tragedy, but an interesting starting point for a sci-fi novel.

Not the entire human population. But those who would want to be sterilized, could become sterilized. If just 1% of world's population would become voluntarily sterilized, the world population growth would take a better turn. (So as the nature, climate, respect for human beings, etc.)

We really need to get rid of old doctrines. We are not breeding sheep, nor animals. We can think for ourselves. Children are a choice, not a duty.



Peace,
Mulder






[edit on 29-5-2009 by Spooky Fox Mulder]

Again, what about cross cutting cleavages?

Originally posted by Spooky Fox Mulder
Children are a choice, not a duty.

Yeah. This I definitely agree with. I've been taught all my life that raising children is the most important thing in life. I just don't think that's really true. Having a family is a priviledge, not a responsibility. It's not for everyone. I think I want to have a couple children someday, but I don't need to raise an army for my religion or anything. All I need is to raise a couple kids to replace me on the planet when I die... and hopefully they'll turn out to be some good for society.

Originally posted by Spooky Fox Mulder

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean

Any form of population control is a homicidal affair.

Um, no. Please go back and read the whole post.

People breed friend, there is no stopping it without control. Giving that kind of power away is not something I would ever consider. You want to avoid having kids then feel free, but I bet in time the hormones get the better of you.

Populations of all species do find balance. As our energy resources disappear you could expect the human population to decrease unless we adapt and find viable alternatives, in which case we have maintained the balance. The human population increases directly parallel industrialization, and if the engine that drives all this sputters out well you get the idea.

Try as we might the notion of humans hurting planet Earth is entirely fictional. Consider that 98% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct, and consider the worlds past calamities, well at least those we are aware of. There are many events in Earth’s history that make the entire history of human impact seem trivial. I know lots of attention has been paid to global warming and C02, but you need to consider that there have been single events that released more C02 in an instant than humans have in all of history. Life is so very robust that we mere humans could never extinguish it. Just as forest fire makes room for new life, so extinction open the door to diversity, new life etc.

The human race will likely be a very short lived affair, and its best to live while the living is good. Kids can be considered manifest destiny of every person on the planet. To deny this basic right even voluntarily is to deny one a full life, and also his or her chance at immortality.

If we could sustain populations in the trillions then its definitely the right move for the human race, this will undoubtedly lead to the stars. This would mean calamity for lots and lots of species, but that’s just how the cookie crumbles ya know. This will very likely not ever be possible, but one can dream. The human race will find its ceiling using the tried and true methods of old.

One might complain that the quality of life with all those people would suck, but well your quality of life is what your told it is really. Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise. In fact the daily life of most Americans would have been considered a curse in times past. I have seen witches curses that relate very closely to the working classes day to day life.

Words build bridges into unexplored regions. Depopulation is not a place we really want to explore.

[edit on 30-5-2009 by Donkey_Dean]

reply to post by kettlebellysmith


I dont think depopulation via murder is the key. But people should be licensed to breed. We should be making children at the same rate people are dying in order to keep the population steady. Also, why in those countries where you see babies born starving (you know those commercials where the babies are filthy and they have the flies on their faces) are these people still allowed to breed at such a rate? It is obvious their geographic location and level of technology does not dicate rampant breeding. How about instead of sending rice and water over there by the ton, we send condoms?

I have spoken about population control at length with my friends and family and it starts many heated debates. We as a race need to breed to mantain our race, not make babies via careless rompings or because they are cute.

I would go as far as world wide temporary sterilization. When a person passes a multi faceted evaluation that can be licensed to breed and have the sterlization reversed. This is not the same race and situation as it was 5000 years ago, or even 100 years ago. Steps need to be taken. Perhaps when we can colonize another planet we can turn loose our loinds again with reckless abandon

reply to post by Spooky Fox Mulder


Nonsense.

This planet can easily support at LEAST double the population the world has now.

The obtacle to this of course is the same as virtually every single other problem the world faces - greed.

Greed for resources, more than our fair share anyway, the greed for personal power over others (have never understood the attraction, except maybe to compensate for a tiny dick, or indeed envy of the same, if female) the greed for money, for information, for the lead, to win.

Always the same...we allow the mentally infirm (at least the personality challenged) to rule over us, and then throw our arms in the air and gnash our teeth when we find they are making a complete hash of it all, and oh...where is our utopia? Never gonna happen as long as the greedy are in power. It's going to take a paradigm shift in our thinking to make this a better world for all of us, not just the West.

Birth control has a place in all of this, if it was actually needed, which it isn't. The populated portions of the Earth are a tiny % of available habitable land. Deserts can be used to generate the world power, economically and sustainably. The planet is 2/3rds covered with water for Christs sake, so all the talk of running out of water, is just nuts. Desalination can be accomplished cheaply and easily. Food can be grown virtually anywhere there is power, under lights if need be 24 hrs a day.

OK, 14 Billion, cannot live in a greedy selfish world, such as the West does The U.S. is the biggest 'greedy pig' there is in the world, consuming much more than anyone else per capita. But, with a lot of planning, and a little humility, there are more than enough resources for a lot more people to have a go at this life thing comfortably.

Rant over.

Originally posted by Spooky Fox Mulder

Originally posted by Ace High

I agree....you go first.

I'm already sterilized.

Now, your turn.

So am I. Who's next?

Originally posted by Isaac Tanner Madsen
***snip***
All I need is to raise a couple kids to replace me on the planet when I die... and hopefully they'll turn out to be some good for society.

The point is that you only need one to replace you.

In developing countries they often need more than one child because child mortality rate is high. This is not the case in the so called developed countries.

I remember Liv Ullman talking on a TV show about some trip she took to Tibet or some similar place as a UNICEF goodwill ambassador.
She was asked by a high official to go home.
They didn't need their infants saved from early death. Why would they want a child saved at age 6 months where they could hardly percieve the world when it would die age 6 where it DID now what suffering was and there was no help from the outside world?

Liv Ullman was very moved by this and she told the audience that it opened her eyes for how wrongly the aid systems worked and that sometimes help we give in the best of meanings is in fact no help at all.


[edit on 30.5.2009 by HolgerTheDane]

This talk about depopulation is pointless. It won't solve anything as you will still have, greed, corruption, violence and wars etc. All these depopulation threads are hypocritical. Nobody ever takes responsibility for their own actions. It's always everyone else's fault. If you have a problem with the way things are, then do something about it and lead by example.

Well said Spikey. You earned a star.

reply to post by HolgerTheDane


In under developed countries they have more than enough children to over come the death rates, which is why they are the areas where population is growing the fastest.

You have one thing right.

Sending aid to these poor over populated countries where the adults can not even take care of themselves, let alone the large numbers of children that they create, only makes the problem worse, and leads to more suffering.

There is no reason for intelligent capable people to not have children. They are the people who should have children.

You want a Solution to the population problem?

I got one.

First, I will explain my position so that none may misinterpret.


There are not too many people on this planet, that is a misconception.

There is too much OVERUSE of the resources available to us.


Typically, the more people you have, the more resources they use.

But also, comes the addition of certain industries and processes that use resources inefficiently, or irresponsibly.

Many examples would be the overall reliance on Petrolium byproducts.

In an industrial society, you sort of NEED a car (mostly) to survive, and the more people there are IN this industrial nation, the more CARS you need, the more FUEL you use, etc...

A reduction in population is ONE way to go about it, but a reduction on the OVERDEPENDENT of certain techniques of "Civilization" would be another.

If all of our cars were made from lightweight, biodegradable materials (plant fiber, and natural oil plastics) they would be more energy efficient in their construction.

Also the current model for industrialized nations causes many (too many) jobs and occupations to be in centralized locations (even whn centralization is irrelevant)

An example is the proliferation of Lawyers, accountants, data entry, etc... in large cities, when these jobs could be conducted over virtual private networks without ever having to leave home.

The problem with this system , as has been spelled out before, is GREED.

Greed creates centralization of power and control over resources.

Centralization causes unnatural Growth (like a cancer) and this leads to the usage of more resources than are ACTUALLY necessary for survival, and to thrive.

Now, all industrial retooling aside, back to the main problem.

For our current method of organizing society (known as a qualifier for a generalization) we *DO* have too many people.

If our society was Tribal, nomadic, Monklike, etc... we would have PLENTY of room.

But that is not how we have organized things currently... so, the conundrum.


Ok, to the solution:

We already have a depopulation force in the world... and no it is not war, or genetically modified diseases, or whatever.

It is pure, natural DEATH.

People die, it happens all the time and it is natural.

What we are in NEED of, is a BALANCE between birth and death, as a whole, we have more births than there are deaths for any given time frame.

This leads to a general growth in population, and owing to my previous consideration to how we use resources in our societies, Population growth is a bad thing.


So, how do we reduce the population?

Simple, reduce the birthrate.


Now, before you flame me, allow me to explain.

Many who advocate control of the birthrate favor sterilization, one child policies, etc...

These are not necessary, actually.

There is a better way to control the birthrate, and that is to have people (as a whole) have children (overall) later in life than they currently do.

Just increase the average time-span of a generation, gradually.

Instead of 15-20 years between birth and breeding, move it to 25-30 years between birth and breeding.

"But how would you enforce this Edrick?" And, "Wouldn't this be a barbaric control of people's lives?"


No, I would NOT enforce it... I would guide it.

and NO, it would not be barbaric.


The reason IS, we are ENCOURAGING our youth to take up reproduction as early as possible.... and we do not even know it.


By forceing their interaction (IN LARGE GROUPS) as early as possible.


MY solution, is to Segregate Schools by gender.

A Boys school, and a Girls school.


Do not force them to interact before they are ready, and ESPECIALLY NOT when their hormones are at their most influential.

In school, single gender classrooms would be more efficient for instruction because of the lower amount of distraction (thoughts of sex, just a few desks away...)

And thus, Education would be more efficient, and young people would usually wait until some later point for the mass mixed gender conditions that stimulate FERVENT sexual activity (that inevitably leads to new births)


Thus, they would LEARN more in their formative years, have a larger thirst for learning BEFORE they get distracted in the mating game, and overall, they would reproduce LATER, and be better able to support their offspring.


Ta-Da!


Now, tell me I'm sexist.


-Edrick

Gorman, you are really hung up on this “cross cutting cleavage” thing. Did you just learn the term?
Losing them would be no loss.
We got along better when there were fewer people.
Fewer people = fewer differences.

Donkey Dean, I think that talk about hurting the Earth is meaning that we are destroying the means of our existence. Presently ALL of our waterways are polluted do to human activity. The Earth itself does not care. But we should care. Polluted water is not healthful.

So you think that there should be trillions of people on Earth?
You are kidding aren’t you?
I wish, I wish that you would take a minute and have that dream where you are living on this Earth with a trillion humans. When you wake up come back here and tell us what it was like.

Spikey, at the present rate of growth, this Earth will have double the present population in about 10 years. I truly hope that you will be alive to see it, and that you live in it for at least 20 years, by which time population could double again and be 24 billion.

You mention greed.
Are you suggesting that everything be rationed?
Are you saying that those who have should give to those who need?
That those who work should give to those who do not?

So if I want to be “greedy” and enjoy the fruits of my labor by living in luxury are you going to try to take it away so that your 10 kids can have some of it?
I think that people who have more than 2 kids are the greedy selfish ones.
They care not for others, only themselves. They take up space, demand food, produce waste, all of which interferes with the general quality of the lives of others.

Tell me, how will your quality of life be improved when there are 12 billion people on Earth.
If the quality of life is not improved then what advantage is there to having so many people?

Originally posted by Spooky Fox Mulder
Alright. I am prepared to be flamed and burned, so be it. I feel that it is important to address this subject.

This planet needs depopulation.

I think Depopulation is a bit drastic. I'm not saying you're wrong, mind. But consider the alternative: Colonization. There are many worlds out there and we HAVE the technology, it's just held back by the Government and the Church to stop people from suddenly having no need of either of the two.
If the planet has got to the stage where there are too many of us to survive, then naturally we should start to look at expansion and colonization rather than depopulation.

Originally posted by James Random

Originally posted by Spooky Fox Mulder
Alright. I am prepared to be flamed and burned, so be it. I feel that it is important to address this subject.

This planet needs depopulation.

I think Depopulation is a bit drastic. I'm not saying you're wrong, mind. But consider the alternative: Colonization. There are many worlds out there and we HAVE the technology, it's just held back by the Government and the Church to stop people from suddenly having no need of either of the two.
If the planet has got to the stage where there are too many of us to survive, then naturally we should start to look at expansion and colonization rather than depopulation.

Yeah, we don’t have the technology for that! Sure we can send probes out, but humans are a different story. Had the trip to the moon not had the protection of the magnetosphere then no one would have survived the radiation for more than a few hours.

Also the last time I heard all of the Biosphere projects had failed miserably. I think this means growing food in a sealed environment is not feasible. We couldn’t reach most of the planets in our own solar system, and the closest stars are hundreds of light years away.


[edit on 30-5-2009 by Donkey_Dean]

If the whole world united (not this New World Order), then we could focus on space exploration and possibly find another planet, or even regenerate one that can't support human life.

our threat shouldn't be here on Earth, it should be something up there and thats all the military should be used for.

Just imagine if the whole world worked together? We would be driving spaceships instead of cars in are daily lives.

Originally posted by OhZone


Donkey Dean, I think that talk about hurting the Earth is meaning that we are destroying the means of our existence. Presently ALL of our waterways are polluted do to human activity. The Earth itself does not care. But we should care. Polluted water is not healthful.

So you think that there should be trillions of people on Earth?
You are kidding aren’t you?
I wish, I wish that you would take a minute and have that dream where you are living on this Earth with a trillion humans. When you wake up come back here and tell us what it was like.

A world with trillions of people is most likely impossible, but would not be a miserable place at all.

Envision a planet wide city. Consider the technology and external resources it would take to maintain the population.

"Necessity is the mother of all invention!"

Certainly it would be a struggle to achieve this hefty goal, but struggle is the father of all things. It is not by the principles of humanity that man lives or is able to preserve himself above the animal world, but solely by means of the most brutal struggle.

Right now, we might as well still be in the stone age. A massive population demands we adapt/evolve. It really is the only hope the human race has for survival, as it may be the only path that will lead us to the stars.





[edit on 31-5-2009 by Donkey_Dean]

When Yellowstone blows up in the next two years, plenty of people will die off as a result.
If it was true that we need to reduce the population, the earth will take care of it.
People who want to take it on themselves to be the grim reaper are just sick.

Depopulation, to reduce greatly the population of.

This Planet doesn't need depopulation it needs to be rethought/reprogrammed.