Over Population Discussion

#1

I feel, and I think just about every body can agree with me, that over population is a major problem the world now faces.

The discussion is on the severity of the problems and the solutions.
IMO, over population is be far the most pressing matter the world faces, yet strangely heard about the least. Less over population would mean less pollution, less global warming, less economic problems, less war, less diseases, less starvation, and the list goes on. The one problem I can forsee is if the population lowered, it might cause some economic problems because of a lack of consumers for businesses, mainly in real estate.

I think the best course of action at this time would be to expose this problem to the public. You see people on tv talk about depleted oil, global warming and all kinds of problems, but never over population. So have more magazines articles, more newspaper articles and more talk shows talking about over population so that the public becomes aware of this problem. Also, have above sources ask people to please consider over population when planning on having children and suggest adoption if people want more than say three kids.

If the situation becomes more dire, perhaps have mandatory vissectamies to people who have more than 3 kids. I understand this is a violation of freedom, but the healthiness of our world should, to a certain extent, take presidence over personal freedom.

#2

:what:

#3

Make a law. If you have more than three kids, you are punished by being forced to have a visectomy. This may seem brutal and dictatorial, but I think it is far better than any other course of action because it prevents any damage or traumatic experience to the child. I just used visectomy because it was the first that came to mind, anything that prevents children would work.

#4

Get the fuck out. NOW!

#5

lol?
I proposed this as a LAST DITCH solution, if there was nothing we could do to convince people to stop having so many children. It’s not at all pretty, but it could become necessary, and it’s a hell of a lot better than China’s throw your daughters in the gutter strategy.

#6

fix’d

#7

It is, I don’t think we are at this point yet, but if the population continues to grow at this point it will be necessary. This is the best I can think of, if you can think of a better idea, please post it.

#8

have you ever read Asimov’s short stories? There was one (i cannot remember its name though) that depicted the existance of a group called the ultras (pretty much a nazi-like organization) that wanted to get rid of overpopulation by getting rid of the “useless” and “worthless” portion of the population, leaving only 5 million people alive.

#9

let’s wait for china to do it first, then see how that goes

#10

But this way nobody is killed, there is as little suffering as possible, if any. And as I suggested first we should try asking people not to have as many children and helping them understand the damage we are doing by having so many children.

#11

Thats stupid. If our society wants to get serious about not fucking the environment, the solutions I would suggest are twofold

  1. an ubiquitous, well funded ‘green’ propaganda campaign. Propaganda in mass media has been shown to be effective in altering voluntary behavior, for example think about how the anti-cigarette and anti-marijuana propaganda campaigns have influenced our culture to be intolerant towards those behaviors. I want to see a campaign of equal intensity targeted towards engineering low-impact or zero-impact behavior, including planning family size.

  2. serious governmental controls on corporate behavior which effects the environment, with no loopholes (no offshoring pollution, no “trading” carbon credits). total Governmental oversight of any corporate activity which could endanger ecosystems (someone has to keep an eye on those oil tankers). Related, Govermental controls mandating sustainable construction/housing development. No more building cities in the desert and pipelining the entire water supply from some fucked-over river a few hundred miles away. Government subsidies promoting sustainable food suppliers, taxes discouraging factory farming & GMO crops.

Obviously every country would have to take similar steps to have a global impact. But the quality-of-life improvements from low-impact society could prove a selling point if successfully implemented in one country- perhaps starting a chain reaction. Who knows.

#12

Agreed, but the problem is government officials make money from said idiotic activities so it is in their best interests not to stop those activities. How about an anti-overpopulation propaganda campaign?

My second idea isn’t stupid because it isn’t a good solution, it’s stupid because it will never happen. Green things only target four problems: depleted oil, pollution, disease, and global warming. Solving overpopulation helps everything.

#13

Implement the Logan’s Run concept: terminate everyone over the age of 40. May seem harsh and unfair but eventually we may have no choice.

Simply not having anymore children won’t help because the population will get older and die off.

#14

I’m not at all suggesting we have no children, I’m just saying everyone should have a number of children that will even out or slowly decrease our population. Killing people to limit population is just cruel and unnecessary, limiting children causes the least amount of pain and suffering while dealing with the problem with the least economic damage.

#15

Perhaps you didn’t notice, but all these things help to reduce overpopulation quite efficiantly on their own.

#16

Not enough to balance it back out.
yet.

#17

Garthbartin, I like you and all, but some days I’m not entirely sure if you’re retarded or not.

#18

I’m afraid I don’t agree with this; at least, not all of it

Pollution, linked to global warming, is not dependant on population but more on lifestyle. Until recently, the USA was the world’s largest producer of greenhouse gas, a title that is now held by Chine. The US is not the most populous country in the world. I am of the opinion that emissions are linked to lifestyle more than population; the rich account for the vast majority of energy consumption despite being a minority group (as for sources, this was from a university lecture, so I can’t provide one. My humble word will have to do for now :slight_smile: )

On the issues such as war and starvation, a much more pressing problem presents itself in climate change. While some areas will suffer from desertification, others will become more fertile. Far from being a good thing, this will lead to mass human migration, which can lead to water and food shortages and conflict (From a rather good book written by John Burroughs)

The simple fact is that within the next century we’re going to see major changes in our climate: sea levels will rise by between 0.8m and 1.2m, depending on who’s book you read, and where you are in the world. Countries such as the Netherlands and Bangladesh are facing inundation of much of their land, reducing the available inhabitable area.

On your idea of forced vasectomies, maybe we should look at China, where population control limited the number of children a couple could have. We have people killing new born girls so they can try again for a boy, leading to the situation today where China is facing a shortage of women. Population control is bad news, and is not the answer

#19

They R just doin it wrong, mate.

Nobody forces them to kill their baby girls - it’s just a cultural thing. To them, male children are more valuable than females, because they still believe in patriarchic bullshit.

Without the killing of female babies, the system would actually work quite well.

#20

Kids are obnoxious as fuck anyway.

I agree, 3 kids, you get a vasectomy.

Though I don’t think overpopulation is as big of a deal as the OP makes it out to be. But the population is growing exceptionally fast and at some point something will have to be done. Though limiting kids doesn’t have to be the solution.

Founded in 2004, Leakfree.org became one of the first online communities dedicated to Valve’s Source engine development. It is more famously known for the formation of Black Mesa: Source under the 'Leakfree Modification Team' handle in September 2004.