Thread: Population Control

Originally Posted by tommo

If you were President/Prime Minister or ruled the world what would be your method of population control?

A few ideas of mine are:
a) Nothing, let us fill every square inch of the Earth until we die slowly of starvation.*
b) Simply cull some of the bad cultures. i.e Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Racists etc.
c) Secretly poison batches of food or drink.
d) Develop a virus which wipes out a mass of people then stops a few days later so we don't all die. Ala Transporter 2
e) Stop people from having as many babies**
f) Destroy places which keep the population growing. i.e Sperm banks, IVF clinics etc.

* This would mean all other animals would die and risking the high possibility of the surviving population having no food either.
** This would keep the population as it is; would not lower it, but is the least violent of all options.

Actually number 3 wouldnt just keep the population as is, because if people are dying then the population is dropping if no babies are being born.

I'd castrate the stupid.

Make potential parents have to pass a certain test to be able to raise a child. Intelligence test.

Originally Posted by Abra

I'd castrate the stupid.

Originally Posted by TimeStopper

Make potential parents have to pass a certain test to be able to raise a child. Intelligence test.

Maybe a less bloody alternative to Abra's idea.

My contribution was mostly a joke. I'll try and take it serious, for the sake of discussion.

Originally Posted by TimeStopper

Make potential parents have to pass a certain test to be able to raise a child. Intelligence test.

How would you enforce this? What if they have a kid anyway? Would you force an abortion?

Under my world order, "stupid" wouldn't necessarily mean unintelligence on any test (if you have a low IQ, but can hold a job, you are fine. If you have an average or below average IQ, are a druggie, and aren't looking for a job, you are stupid. Or clinically depressed.). I'd consider rapists and pedophiles "stupid," along with anyone else who commits sex crime. I'd fix welfare... Somehow... As to discourage the poor from having children for the purpose of getting extra money.

In third world countries, it's all a matter of improving the standard of living (same is true for the rest of the world. Upper class has negative population growth). If I ruled the world, I'd work on improving the places that suck today.

Just wait until 2012

Did I mention the masses of newborn religions with their myriad of ways the worl is going to end in 2012?

Oh, hi Jesterfoot.

Originally Posted by Abra

How would you enforce this? What if they have a kid anyway? Would you force an abortion?

Can't speak for Timestopper but I would, the Chinese do it if they have more than one kid.

Originally Posted by Abra

Under my world order, "stupid" wouldn't necessarily mean unintelligence on any test (if you have a low IQ, but can hold a job, you are fine. If you have an average or below average IQ, are a druggie, and aren't looking for a job, you are stupid. Or clinically depressed.). I'd consider rapists and pedophiles "stupid," along with anyone else who commits sex crime. I'd fix welfare... Somehow... As to discourage the poor from having children for the purpose of getting extra money.

I REALLY don't want to turn this into another drug debate but, at the risk of doing so, what if someone was a 'druggie' but had a job? What if they didn't have a job and were a 'druggie' BECAUSE they had clinical depression? or were called dumb all their lives because of their IQ, or whatever other reason. How would you separate these people? Pretty easy to fake clinical depression.

Originally Posted by Abra

In third world countries, it's all a matter of improving the standard of living (same is true for the rest of the world. Upper class has negative population growth). If I ruled the world, I'd work on improving the places that suck today.

That's true. Plus, which I'm assuming you meant, education about safe sex and whatnot; not having a child when you're already struggling to live yourself.

Originally Posted by Fableflame

Actually number 3 wouldnt just keep the population as is, because if people are dying then the population is dropping if no babies are being born.

Yeah I was going to mention that but I was trying to keep the explanations and etc. short and brief since I didn't want to sound like some sort of genocidal, nazi type or anything.

I'd dress a dog as a cat, and send it into a pack of wolves.


This is of course a metaphor for concentrating funds on space technology and making efforts to begin colonising and terraforming new planets.

Originally Posted by tommo

If you were President/Prime Minister or ruled the world what would be your method of population control?

A few ideas of mine are:
a) Nothing, let us fill every square inch of the Earth until we die slowly of starvation.*
b) Simply cull some of the bad cultures. i.e Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Racists etc.
c) Secretly poison batches of food or drink.
d) Develop a virus which wipes out a mass of people then stops a few days later so we don't all die. Ala Transporter 2
e) Stop people from having as many babies**
f) Destroy places which keep the population growing. i.e Sperm banks, IVF clinics etc.

g) Offer $200 to anybody who gets a vasectomy or tubal ligation.

Eugenics. The stupid should be required to be fixed.

Either that or adopt some sort of a Logan's Run kind of thing. For those of you who don't know what Logan's Run is... Get off my lawn you damn kids!

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Eugenics. The stupid should be required to be fixed.

Either that or adopt some sort of a Logan's Run kind of thing. For those of you who don't know what Logan's Run is... Get off my lawn you damn kids!

How the fuck do you know what Logan's Run is? Aren't you like 23 or something?

Why is population a problem?

we don't need population control. THAT IS A LIE BEING SPREAD BY THOSE IN POWER FOR THEIR OWN SELFISH DESIRES.

its an absolute lie that the world lacks abundance. we have ENOUGH abundance to go around. In FACT, right now there is enough food being produced to feed EVERYONE. And even then, we still have the ability to produce even more food than our expected global population will ever need, renewable amounts at that.

this lie that we need less people in the world is being spread by the rich elite, who are afraid of the day when third world countries develop and say "fuck off, these are our natural resources not yours". and since a shit load of natural resources come from third world countries (practically stolen), the day can come when the tide of economic power is turned over.

Lets be honest, the richest people in the world are white, or grey, take your pick. the poorest are not. These richest people in the world will do anything to stay on top. Their idea of population control will be racist. And when money is power, who will stop the power elite from getting their way? It will be third world countries that will disappear. And there are some people out there who believe it's already happening.

its not our population that is the problem

the problem is our lifestyle, and our blindness to a global economy that now values money over human life

our modern lifestyle is not realistic by any means necessary, and has to change DRASTICALLY. its not even healthy. its made people miserable, obese, and goes against our natural biological clock. And its ruining nature.

You want to see nature preserved? Stop living the dream of living in a house and owning a large property, its not realistic. Cities preserve the wilderness. We already have the intelligent minds who can design cities of the future, that are green and don't destroy the natural world like a cancer. So population is not the problem. Its our unwillingness to change.

Do you understand? It doesn't matter if the whole world was reduced to the population of the US. Its how they live, not their numbers that will destroy themselves.

I don't remember the statistics, but you need something like ten earths to support the world if everyone lived like an american. This doesn't mean the world has too many people, IT MEANS WE ARE CONSUMING AND WASTING FAR TOO MUCH. And most of what we consume, is actually useless to begin with.

Just imagine how many napkins are used everyday. Imagine how much paper, how many trees are used up for an item, you use to dry your hands once and then TRASH. ONCE!! ONCE!! We killed a forest just to make an item to be used ONCE.

That is the type of garbage we are producing and consuming at large quantities. Garbage which actually isn't necessary to live a life of abundance. Garbage that from a young age, commercials make us feel like we need. Garbage being produced not because its needed, not because it really makes your life better, but because someone is making money off of it.

and I thought someone already linked this, but if you haven't watched it, watch it now!

http://www.storyofstuff.com/

I was getting to that, but I like to start with a question to trigger people's thought processes instead of leaving my own inaccurate point of view for people to judge or ignore.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Why is population a problem?

Populations are only a problem when they are dysfunctional.

Right, so how do we make this population functional? I'm opposed to redistribution of wealth, but what are the options?

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Right, so how do we make this population functional? I'm opposed to redistribution of wealth, but what are the options?

Offer $200 to anybody who gets a vasectomy or tubal ligation. The dysfuncional will jump to that like dogs to leftover steak and stop reproducing.

Juroara, I partially agree with you.

I agree that the world can support a large human population. Not so sure about the "rich people telling the world we need less people" part.

Russia, for example, has a huge untapped areas that could be used for agriculture. Also, Africa could also support itself with today's genetically engineered crops, but apparently when the United States sent over a bunch, they were denied because the government thought the crops would be "unhealthy".

But then you're basically giving a vasectomy to everyone who lives ina 1st world country and isn't being limited by their religious beliefs, geographical locations and other issues. You're saying, "Hey poor people! If you want money, just sterilize yourself!"

So only rich people, and people from buttfuck, egypt that aren't connected to this information, continue to breed.

And I wasn't talking about lowering the population, if we lower it with bribery it'll just shoot back up again later when the rich people's ratrded little brats start fucking each other. I was talking about fixing the problem as a whole, the real problem. The amount of people we have is not creating starvation, it's just that for people to maintain a sense of status and power they have to control assets and continue to make them scarce so the rest of the world as to fight and compete for these assets.

Food could be free, and it could feed everyone, there is no need for food to cost anything, there's enough of it to feed the world over several times, for everyone alive to eat 30 meals a day. It's made scarce so the producers can maintain power.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Right, so how do we make this population functional? I'm opposed to redistribution of wealth, but what are the options?

a lot of people are against it because they feel 'their' money is being given to someone else who is less deserving

but lets look at min. wage.

min. wage no longer functions. the purpose of min. wage was to ensure that if you worked, you will live above poverty. Now min. wage can't afford anything else other than poverty. And some people try to change the reason behind min. wage to - having cheap teenage labor. And since teenagers don't need to live on their own, its okay if min. wage can't afford any sort of home anyways.

other people argue that raising min. wage to a living standard is bad, because businesses don't have the money

businesses don't have money if enough people aren't buying their goods

people can't buy goods, if they are poor!

so that logic is circular. when people have money they will buy even the most worthless crap

I dont think its necessarily right to take a hard working mans income and give it to someone probably less skilled and educated

buuuuuuttt, a lot of people working min. wage, are actually working for huge multi million dollar businesses!! Why can't these businesses afford to pay their employees more? They can. They're just greedy.

And we've seen this greediness in CEOs, who make more than any human in a natural life time will ever need

I support redistribution of wealth in the respect that CEOs have taken money that isn't theirs. It belongs to the employees below them, and we should do something to make sure that money is given back to them

its not just min. wage that hasn't adjust for inflation, almost all middle class wages are worth less than what they should be. That wealth needs to be redistributed back to who it rightfully belongs to, the middle class

I'm all down for capping the income level of CEOs, especially when their employees make less and less and less and less....

Originally Posted by tommo

I REALLY don't want to turn this into another drug debate but, at the risk of doing so, what if someone was a 'druggie' but had a job? What if they didn't have a job and were a 'druggie' BECAUSE they had clinical depression?

I dislike druggies. And the question was "What would you do?" not, "What should be done?".

If they kept a job, and were not abusive, they'd keep their children and sperm/eggs, no matter the drug.

If they have clinical depression... Hmm. I guess if I ruled the world, I'd have to invest to see which cases of depression were genetic. Those people would be rendered infertile. Those that were caused by situation will be put under a review board, perhaps a rehabilitation program.

Did you do heroin when you were in the womb?

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Did you do heroin when you were in the womb?

What?

I wouldn't use population control. The funding would instead go toward increasing the holding capacity of the world. Don't clear out what may be useful when you can just make more space for it.