18 replies to this topic

[Award Winning Boss]

Obviously the population is growing at quite a large rate... whether that is all bad is another topic. I'm wondering, people say we need to do x,y,z,a,b,c (you get the point) about it, but what can we do?

Some suggestions i've heard of...

• 1 child policy (like China)
  
• Reintroduction of Eugenics through sterilisation not murder
  
• Reduce payment from the government to deter people from having children.
  
• License to have children

Now there are problems with these as there are with every political solution.

The one child policy seems logical but who are you to say that you can't give birth to more than one child? The clear 'what happens to twins?'. It is something that people, from countries outside china, have thought is ridiculous and i find it amusing that they'd be willing to bring it back now.

Eugenics is cruel. I personally find it disgusting that people would consider enforced sterilisation or anything of the sort. I always thought it was a joke when people brought it up.

I'm not to sure with this one because it has the same principle of reducing benefits to make people go out and find a job (that is if they are just being lazy)

What is your opinion on this ?

(i'm guessing this might end up people trying to define ethical behaviour)

[Trololol Marf]

Well of course every action has its repercussions.

Speaking in regards to the one-child policy, China believes the population problem outweighs anything else. And this is unethical? I strongly argue that it isn't. China is considering the greater good. Sure, it'd be great to let people have a better freedom, but really, look at the population. Last time I checked, it was 1.2 billion. The decision makers of China's one child policy, I believe, are Malthusian thinkers: What happens when there are too many people in the world? Resources run out; the result is global famine.

Some people are too blind to see long-term problems, and openly protest that what China is doing is wrong. Maybe it's not that great that the Chinese can't procreate as much as other nations, but hey, they will sustain longer in the long run. And that's why China, or rather, any government should be able to tell people to only give birth to one child.

[Award Winning Boss]

Capt, on Nov 06, 2011 - 00:38, said:

Well of course every action has it's repercussions.

Speaking in regards to the one-child policy, China believes the population problem outweighs anything else. And this is unethical? I strongly argue that it isn't. China is considering the greater good. Sure, it'd be great to let people have a better freedom, but really, look at the population. Last time I checked, it was 1.2 billion. The decision makers of China's one child policy, I believe, are Malthusian thinkers: What happens when there are too many people in the world? Resources run out; the result is global famine.

Of course some people are too blind to see long-term problems, and openly protest that what China is doing is wrong. Maybe it's not that great that the Chinese can't procreate as much as other nations, but hey, they will sustain longer in the long run. And that's why China, or rather, any government should be able to tell people to only give birth to one child.

It's the actions of the one child policy i think people see a problem with. Yes there are flaws in every solution ( as i have said) the problems within it are a great matter of debate.

There's a cartoon about the world population... i shall find it !

Edit: i've found

Edited by AHiddenName, Nov 06, 2011 - 00:45.

[URA BOAT]

Capt, on Nov 06, 2011 - 00:38, said:

...I believe, are Malthusian thinkers: What happens when there are too many people in the world? Resources run out; the result is global famine.

Some people are too blind to see long-term problems, and openly protest that what China is doing is wrong. Maybe it's not that great that the Chinese can't procreate as much as other nations, but hey, they will sustain longer in the long run. And that's why China, or rather, any government should be able to tell people to only give birth to one child.

well their has been a lot of studies like with mice when they get over populated some sickness will come along and kill like half...just like a cycle...same thing with people if and when that get over populated ether some sickness of famine will kill or some war over food will kill...humans will always find a way to kill them self's


and for the people that are worried about resorses: mater can not be created nor destroyed...and as for oil and stuff humans are also intelligent they will find a way around it...just to think about it a moving object just because the sun is shining

Edited by URA BOAT, Nov 06, 2011 - 04:54.

[Vol de Mort]

whao that was a cool cartoon thanks.

One ethical way to control population - increase education!

[Award Winning Boss]

Parahydroxyamphetamine, on Nov 06, 2011 - 05:07, said:

whao that was a cool cartoon thanks.

One ethical way to control population - increase education!

And supply people with contraception as well!

[rFumachi]

The other day I found this page http://www.bbc.co.uk.../world-15391515 It's amazing to know that we are already 7 billion people in the world!

[Award Winning Boss]

Here's a really interesting article about 'overpopulation' (i did that on purpose)

http://www.washingto...ss=rss_opinions

It says that we cannot really define whether we are actually overpopulated

[Trololol Marf]

URA BOAT, on Nov 06, 2011 - 04:46, said:

Capt, on Nov 06, 2011 - 00:38, said:

...I believe, are Malthusian thinkers: What happens when there are too many people in the world? Resources run out; the result is global famine.

Some people are too blind to see long-term problems, and openly protest that what China is doing is wrong. Maybe it's not that great that the Chinese can't procreate as much as other nations, but hey, they will sustain longer in the long run. And that's why China, or rather, any government should be able to tell people to only give birth to one child.

well their has been a lot of studies like with mice when they get over populated some sickness will come along and kill like half...just like a cycle...same thing with people if and when that get over populated ether some sickness of famine will kill or some war over food will kill...humans will always find a way to kill them self's


and for the people that are worried about resorses: mater can not be created nor destroyed...and as for oil and stuff humans are also intelligent they will find a way around it...just to think about it a moving object just because the sun is shining

Perhaps you're right. But is disease and famine what we really want? Some sickness will come in and kill half? What happens to the other half? Does the sickness just go away after half? Do resources just come back, after half of the population dies? And you know, that cartoon suggests that all of us die. Now, what is wrong with trying to control the population?

-__- I don't know where you're going with that : "Matter cannot be created or destroyed" People are racking their brains to solve these problems right now. But no matter what we've done, we still cannot exceed the demands of the world population. Really, it takes a tragedy for people to actually come together. But after this tragedy, I'd doubt there is a "coming-together".

[+Agastya]

I don't understand how population growth has become such an important issue. If we take precautionary measures now like China's one child policy, then the number of children born will be fewer. If we don't take these measures then sooner or later, people will die. So to me, it's all about deciding which is better: people already born becoming victim to famine or disease and dieing OR less children being born. I don't really think one is better than the other, so I have no real opinion on the matter.

[Award Winning Boss]

Capt, on Nov 06, 2011 - 15:28, said:

Perhaps you're right. But is disease and famine what we really want? Some sickness will come in and kill half? What happens to the other half? Does the sickness just go away after half? Do resources just come back, after half of the population dies? And you know, that cartoon suggests that all of us die. Now, what is wrong with trying to control the population?

-__- I don't know where you're going with that : "Matter cannot be created or destroyed" People are racking their brains to solve these problems right now. But no matter what we've done, we still cannot exceed the demands of the world population. Really, it takes a tragedy for people to actually come together. But after this tragedy, I'd doubt there is a "coming-together".

Yes all people die in the end but that's an odd statement because doesn't that make life pointless? It's like shooting someone when they jump off a cliff. You still murdered them.

Controlling the world population requires education and co operation but that's really difficult to achieve for some reason

[NER0IDE]

Drop a couple of nukes in China and another couple in India. You have now decreased 1/3 of the worlds population and everything is now back to normal.

JK lol. But think about it, everytime we send help to for example africa. That money is mostly invested into food and medicine. Over there they have always lived a life in which you have 7 children to help you survive and it does not matter if one or two die in the process. Now if we just make ALL of the children healthy and help them live, every each one of them will have 7 more children and so on...
I think if we were to send money, they should invest a bit more in education, and make them see the world in a proper perspective

Edited by NER0IDE, Nov 06, 2011 - 16:02.

[Vanderlyle]

Quote

But think about it, everytime we send help to for example africa. That money is mostly invested into food and medicine. Over there they have always lived a life in which you have 7 children to help you survive and it does not matter if one or two die in the process. Now if we just make ALL of the children healthy and help them live, every each one of them will have 7 more children and so on...
I think if we were to send money, they should invest a bit more in education, and make them see the world in a proper perspective.

That's not exactly the conclusion I would draw from that example...
By sending over food and medicine and decreasing the child mortality rate, families would no longer need to have as many children because they aren't expecting as many to die. Also, by providing food and medicine families and children don't have to struggle as much to simply keep themselves alive, giving them time to focus on something like an education.

We can still send money, it's just no one will care how nicely a school in their town is built if they have to choose between going to it or eating that night.

[URA BOAT]

Capt, on Nov 06, 2011 - 15:28, said:

Perhaps you're right. But is disease and famine what we really want? Some sickness will come in and kill half? What happens to the other half? Does the sickness just go away after half? Do resources just come back, after half of the population dies? And you know, that cartoon suggests that all of us die. Now, what is wrong with trying to control the population?

People are racking their brains to solve these problems right now. But no matter what we've done, we still cannot exceed the demands of the world population. Really, it takes a tragedy for people to actually come together. But after this tragedy, I'd doubt there is a "coming-together".

No i don't want any one to die...if such disaster dose come and cures the population problem..my reasoning for saying that only half will die or what ever is because look at the black plague in 1350's. like 1/3 of Europe was wiped out by it...but what if something like this happens to us right now? i am sure that more then 1/3 are going to die and not just out of Europe. our society is so dense that it would be hard to avoid contact and when it kills some number of people the strong and the smart will avoid or overcome it or maybe science will catch up and find a cure. . or lets look at another possible out come...not enough food..only the rich and the strong will service....but the poor and weak will die.

i understand what you mean. so posts above talk that increasing education might help. but no mater how much people know about it, their is not stopping unless the governments get involved and the universal agreements get put together. its like pollution, this year people came to our school to try educate students about it but i am sure that only like maybe 10 people out of 500 or so really did any thing after they left the lecture, but now that electric cars hit the markets now we can expect some change!!! the same thing with the population thing. in till the government dose something about the it, education wont help. people will not go out of their comfort zone to save something they dont see as a threat
it is truly sad...

[febreezick]

I think that an ethical way of limiting future population growth would be to increase access to contraceptives, sex ed, abortion, etc. Use of contraceptives also needs to be encouraged. Legally restricting people's sexual and procreative activities seems to be inherently unethical to me. We just need to create a global culture in which using contraceptives is a good thing that most people do.

I don't think that the problem is the size of the population but rather the distribution of population and distribution of resources. For example, many European countries (like France) aren't having children at replacement rate. This means that more people die than are born. Also, like last year enough grain was produced to feed over 11 billion people but half of that was fed to livestock who, ultimately, are not capable of feeding as many people.


When you start think of people, individuals, as problems first and not people then it's easier to make unethical decisions. The problem isn't people but rather the inequalities of resource distribution.

[Joe Boyle]

I think that the best way to control population is through education (not just about contraception, but also potential problems and consequences which could be caused by overpopulation) government control (a 1 birth rule or similar enforced globally - not to necessarily outlaw multiple children, but not to support and encourage it - where twins etc. would count as one birth) and economization (of all resources, which would come alongside education).

[brofessional]

Whatever anyone does, it will always be viewed as controversial or unethical by someone. There's no possible way of controlling the population, approximately 7 billion people, without one of those people thinking it's unethical. Therefore, there is no answer to your question, but mere propositions which people will either agree or disagree with. Alas, decision making isn't as easy as some people say...

[Manstein]

A one-child policy is insane. Anyone with even the slightest grasp of demographics could see the unfortunate outcome of that. We would have a global society of the elderly. There would be 2 parents for every 1 child, 4 grandparents for every 1 grandchild, 8 great grandparents for every 1 great grandchild. Society as we know it could never take such a demographic plunge, economically or socially (after all, who will feed the people when the median age is 65 and rising?). China, which is still comparatively poor on an international comparison, has had its population aging faster than almost any country in the world in the last couple of decades. As of 2010-11, its working population will start to shrink, and in the coming decades its population as a whole will start to decline as well, yet still with ever burgeoning numbers of old people, increasing dependency ratios.

A two-child policy, on the other hand, is more like it. That means, in time, a stagnant population with roughly the same amount of elderly as young. That is a model we need to impose globally, for global stability.

[Keel]

Manstein, on Dec 01, 2011 - 00:58, said:

A one-child policy is insane. Anyone with even the slightest grasp of demographics could see the unfortunate outcome of that. We would have a global society of the elderly. There would be 2 parents for every 1 child, 4 grandparents for every 1 grandchild, 8 great grandparents for every 1 great grandchild. Society as we know it could never take such a demographic plunge, economically or socially (after all, who will feed the people when the median age is 65 and rising?). China, which is still comparatively poor on an international comparison, has had its population aging faster than almost any country in the world in the last couple of decades. As of 2010-11, its working population will start to shrink, and in the coming decades its population as a whole will start to decline as well, yet still with ever burgeoning numbers of old people, increasing dependency ratios.

A two-child policy, on the other hand, is more like it. That means, in time, a stagnant population with roughly the same amount of elderly as young. That is a model we need to impose globally, for global stability.

I have responded to your posts on China's One Child Policy in the past: http://www.ibsurviva...__1#entry115856

You, sir, have a very deluded impression of China. Have you visited the country before? Please do.
A typical Chinese factory employs over 2000 workers; I went to a massive industrial distillery in Edinburgh just last week, and they employed around 100.

Unfortunately China isn't "relatively poor on an international comparison". Please have a look at the following:

http://www.studentsoftheworld.info/infopays/rank/PNB2.html

Noticed how I've used GNP instead of GDP. That takes into account all the wealth leaving China due to foriegn companies. Why are some areas in China so poor then? Simple maths: finite resources divided amongst a large population (and economic inequality of course).

Edited by Keel, Dec 01, 2011 - 01:18.