Population Control

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abra

I'd castrate the stupid.

---

:lolxtreme:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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!

---

:lol: 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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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....

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Two words. Soilent Green.

Manufactured scarcity.



(whats happening now, they're doing a great job)

WOAH cowboy!

I'm gonna kinda incorporate Omnius Deus' question in here too (in bold).

Why the hell would the rich people want population control?
The only way they make money is off other people. Economics now is based on the amount of people there is. That's why Australia right now is saying 'yes. come, come immigrants, work for us".
The problem is we do not have enough food to feed them all. So we'll end up with heaps and heaps of money and dead people in the middle of it.

Fair enough I agree maybe there isn't too many people right now. We can sustain Earth if we put effort into keeping our products natural and healthy, so we stay fuller for longer and don't just eat piles of shit, producing waste such as plastic bags and foil paper like chip packets etc.

Also that paper towel/napkin thing you said, juroara, is a perfect example.
I never use them.

But after a while of continuing like we are now. Population wise. We are fucked, basically. You can say we can just go in cities instead of big houses and land. But what happens when we need to expand the cities? I know we're doing that here right now. Cities will be all over the world, no living space for other animals left. Maybe some land for our food.

But anyway. I pretty much knew this would happen. Some left winger, is it left winger? Maybe it's right.... Would come and say it's a conspiracy.

Maybe I'm bias, I've been this way all my life. My ideas are formed from my own common sense. I always knew there would be problems with this 'sustainability'. I asked people 'won't water ever run out?'. They laughed at me lol. Now look at us. I don't know about a lot of places but Australia is in a drought and I'm pretty sure some parts of America are too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abra

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Did you do heroin when you were in the womb?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

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.

---

I don't want the offer to lure in every poor person. I just want it to lure in those who are too irresponsible to raise children well, and it would help with population control too. I am not out to intice all poor people into giving up their reproductive ability. We need poor people because we need bus boys and janitors, etc., and I was poor for a large part of my childhood and for a long time in my adulthood. If it turned out that every poor person out there started trying to give up their reproductive potential for a mere $200, I would want it to be called off.

So just the drunkards then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

So just the drunkards then?

---

No. There are lots of other debilitating drugs, and there are lots of sober people who are way too irresponsible and trashy to raise children the way children need to be raised.

An extreme concept that won't come into effect until it's too late...

But who decides that? Where is the arbitrary line drawn? Will it be the same as this 18 law we have for everything? or 21 in America? Will it be 12 like consensual sex is in Arab countries? For example would you say a person who is highly lazy be killed/sterilised? or just extremely lazy? What is extreme and highly?

Nobody can decide these things exactly. It's all subjective and relative.

For that reason I go with the mass bombing of religious people. lol nah um. I'd probably combine e and f. Then when the population goes down too much we can relieve it a bit. Maybe allow sperm banks etc again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

But who decides that? Where is the arbitrary line drawn? Will it be the same as this 18 law we have for everything? or 21 in America? Will it be 12 like consensual sex is in Arab countries? For example would you say a person who is highly lazy be killed/sterilised? or just extremely lazy? What is extreme and highly?

---

Are you talking to me? I am not at all for killing or forcefully sterilizing the dysfunctional. What I am proposing is something completely consentual.

whats wrong with terriforming the moon and/or mars? The discovery channel made it seem very feasible with some more technilogical research. Then, it would be long long long in to the future before we had a population problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tkdyo

whats wrong with terriforming the moon and/or mars? The discovery channel made it seem very feasible with some more technilogical research. Then, it would be long long long in to the future before we had a population problem.

---

Assuming the majority of the population could afford travel and a permanent move to the moon or another planet, and that the colonies there could support numbers large enough that would make a dent in the rate of overpopulation.

terraforming means not having to have colonies, the whole planet becomes liveable. However unless some advanced technology comes about to emit gasses faster...the ruler would be dead by the time people could live on the new planet. BUT if you were ruler and could do whatever you wanted regardless of money what is stopping you from putting money in to that research and transporting people there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

Two words. Soilent Green.

---

Mmm. Soylent Greeeeen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

Why the hell would the rich people want population control?
The only way they make money is off other people.

---

oh so true so true! the rich need people to buy their goods

heres the problem, not everyone is buying. and nations and people who don't contribute make this power elite very very angry

how is it that we can go into a rain forest, we don't even own, and cut it down for our selfish purposes, when the people who have lived in these rainforests for THOUSANDS OF YEARS, don't want us in their forest? why haven't we respected their rain forest? because the rich don't care about the rights of those who do not contribute to the global economy. those who do not contribute are deemed worthless and essentially have no rights

if no government steps in to protect the native cultures and their sovereign lands, the global economy will devour all of their natural recourses. and we've already seen this happen. when it happens the locals who once lived off their land merrily and happily, starve.

one small word, WTO. Or World Trade Organization. I'm not saying the organization itself is evil, but yes I will say the men in charge of the organization are. I don't remember the name of the group but, there was a group of men who would infiltrate the secret meetings of the WTO to find out what it is they are scheming. Their infiltration of these meeting show why WTO conferences aren't open for public hearing. Their discussions are unlawful and show zero respect for human life, zero respect for sovereign nations, and zero respect for the earth. They operate themselves, for themselves, which is very, very, very, very dangerous because that means they operate for MONEY and not for people.

http://www.globalexchange.org/campai...OpposeWTO.html

"6. The WTO is Killing People

The WTO's fierce defense of 'Trade Related Intellectual Property' rights (TRIPs)—patents, copyrights and trademarks—comes at the expense of health and human lives. The WTO has protected for pharmaceutical companies' 'right to profit' against governments seeking to protect their people's health by providing lifesaving medicines in countries in areas like sub-saharan Africa, where thousands die every day from HIV/AIDS. Developing countries won an important victory in 2001 when they affirmed the right to produce generic drugs (or import them if they lacked production capacity), so that they could provide essential lifesaving medicines to their populations less expensively. Unfortunately, in September 2003, many new conditions were agreed to that will make it more difficult for countries to produce those drugs. Once again, the WTO demonstrates that it favors corporate profit over saving human lives."


"8. The WTO is Increasing Hunger
Farmers produce enough food in the world to feed everyone -- yet because of corporate control of food distribution, as many as 800 million people worldwide suffer from chronic malnutrition. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, food is a human right. In developing countries, as many as four out of every five people make their living from the land. But the leading principle in the WTO's Agreement on Agriculture is that market forces should control agricultural policies-rather than a national commitment to guarantee food security and maintain decent family farmer incomes. WTO policies have allowed dumping of heavily subsidized industrially produced food into poor countries, undermining local production and increasing hunger."

the infiltration shows that these people only care about one thing. Power. And money is power. Would population control equal more money? Maybe to them it does, if it means now they can do whatever they want with all the worlds resources without having to deal with those inferior poor folk who weren't contributing anyways.

Don't think its possible?

Then why haven't the richest people in the WTO made any real effort to feed the starving, when they know there is enough food to go around, when they have the money and power to feed them? THEY DON'T CARE.

maybe in the future when we pull our heads out of our arses and look at the truth, we will call the starvation crises today what it really is - genocide. Because we will really understand in the future, how it was allowed to happen by those in power.

increase crimes which result in capital punishment? nah

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnDUHrew

increase crimes which result in capital punishment? nah

---

This is an included bonus with Manufactured Scarcity. Poverty creates crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

This is an included bonus with Manufactured Scarcity. Poverty creates crime.

---

Impoverished people seem to have higher birth rates.
Dare I say uneducated people too?
Well.... one begets the other imo.

Contaminated water supply
Better condoms

~Soilent green --. Great movie

The best way to control population is to offer high encouragments for smaller birth rates. The policies must be balanced until an average rate of two children per person is reached. If one generation is smaller than the last, you see problems that are plaguing China right now. The population should be sustainable. If someone wants a larger family, they should be highly encouraged to adopt. That kills two birds with one stone anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Impoverished people seem to have higher birth rates.
Dare I say uneducated people too?
Well.... one begets the other imo.

---

Well, yes. It is proven dumber people have more kids. Idiocracy is also a good movie. lol

juroara - The only problem I see with your 'conspiracy' (parentheses because I'm not sure if you're incorrect) is that, say they killed off all the poor people. They now have that land for farming and factories etc. (which you already said we have enough of here, but for the sake of argument....) But who is going to go over there and do all the work for the 1c per day wage they get?

It just doesn't make sense to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Impoverished people seem to have higher birth rates.
Dare I say uneducated people too?
Well.... one begets the other imo.

Contaminated water supply
Better condoms

~Soilent green --. Great movie

---

They also have a much higher infant mortality rate and an over all lower life expectancy. I'd have to see the numbers to make a more informed judgment.

See the numbers then. Google is your friend. Their birth rate exceeds their death rate.

Licenses to breed, anyone?

:shock: Breed what?

http://ecostreet.com/blog/wp-content.../baby-gown.jpg

Oooooooooh lol. I get it.

Yeah, but who get's the licenses?

People deemed competent enough to raise children that won't make society more of a hell hole?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

See the numbers then. Google is your friend. Their birth rate exceeds their death rate.

---

I'm having trouble finding the information I'm looking for. Perhaps you could point me in the direction of a few sources that outline up to date comparisons of birth to death rates as well as infant mortality rates as they relate to GDP of countries, economic class striations within each country and the over all average across the globe. While you're at it, I'll also need to know the numbers for resource consumption per capita for each demographic.

Well, http://whyobamawilllose.wordpress.co...more-children/ lol
http://lyingeyes.blogspot.com/2008/1...-make-you.html Although that guy comes to that conclusion from something which could just be interpreted as, the families with more kids play more and don't do work at school or something.

But anyway. Poor families....
OMG.... Just found a discussion on you know what forum after searching 'poor people have more kids' first link lol
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show....php?p=6347401
Unfortunately my IP is banned, so I don't know if there's anything helpful in there. I highly doubt it.

Well, I guess you figured I can't find shit. Guess that's the power of media + everyone else you know believing it.

But if you think about it. They don't have a lot of education about prevention of womb growths. Obviously not enough money for the pill, and probably cbf with condoms anyway. True, when health lowers, as has been happening in third world countries, so does fertility. But I don't think it lowers that much to render them infertile nation-wide.

Anyway, I'm bummed on that one. Anyone else got studies confirming any of this?

EDIT: But I'm pretty sure they consume less as well. I mean, they are all undernourished.

EDIT again: I'm pretty sure you could just look at population though. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004379.html Not sure why every country isn't there but anyway....

EDIT again again:
AH! got it.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004395.html
and
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934668.html

Or just look here for more on life expectancy infant mortality rates etc.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873846.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...fertility_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_birth_rate