First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Should we create and enforce restrictions on re-production?
19028 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Mid-Atlantic
Offline
Posted 11/17/12 , edited 12/29/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:

Overpopulation is a problem in the world today.
Even in countries that aren't concidered as overpopulated per se, still often struggle with being able to meet the demands of all its citizens.

Should we, to reverse this problem, create restrictions when it comes to re-production?
One way could be like they have in China, namely set a restriction for how many children each family can get.
OR, we could just potentially stop it altogether for a certain period of time.
For instance by collecting semen from all males, freezing it for potential future use, and then castrate them to make sure they don't reproduce without concent.

These are just two options that comes to mind on the fly.
Is this concept a good idea? Should we enforce harsh restrictions of re-production? And if not, then why?


Actually their is a much simpler natural method that is not in use thanks to your government. It's called gossypol. From the 1930-1940 Wang village in Jiangsu, China suffered a severe economic period which forced homes to switch from soybean oil to a cheaper cooking oil derived from crude cottonseed. A few particular species of cotton contain a phenolic compound called gossypol. For 10 years the village was infertile, with normal to above average reproduction rates before and after this 10 year period. In 1957 these facts became known to the government and they sent researchers into Jiangsu to study the case resulting in their finding that gossypol is an antispermatogenic (it stops sperm from being produced). In the late 70's early 80's this information became available to the United Nations then to a majority of the worlds governments, many researching it for close to a decade finding that it was inexpensive to produce, reversible, and showing no side-effects*. It has been deemed unfit only because if 9 times the prescribed amount is taken it could be deadly. I can't think of a single man I know that would be stupid enough to stuff 10 birth control pills down their throats to kill themselves can you? Most would just be so happy to screw to their hearts contents without any possible future flashbacks or reprisals. And it's not as if the U.S. produces much cotton anymore so there is very little chance of an overdose due to somehow consuming it. With all of the unplanned children that men are legally responsible for I don't understand how this product has not been made available to men yet. Several governments around the the world are now seriously looking at distribution. I don't want to look for the notebook with the country lists but several sub-Saharan countries having birthrates of 7+ children/woman are seriously reviewing the drug. I think it's a much better plan than castration don't you.
You know women face much higher rates of strokes, heart disease, and cancer taking prescribed levels of birth control would it really be that difficult for men to take a pill a day so they wouldn't get a girl knocked up, and to not pop a handful of birth control pills to kill themselves. If you want to kill yourself there are very cheap over-the-counter means to do it where you just fall to sleep and go into a coma and stop breathing no pain and you can change your mind for 1 hour +/-. As opposed to a guy using b.c. pills, that just seems to be the antithesis of something male.


*-During periods drug was studied no discernible effects or birth defects were found to be caused by gossypol.
19028 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Mid-Atlantic
Offline
Posted 11/17/12 , edited 11/17/12

longfenglim wrote:

No. Because Overpopulation creates a larger pool of potential workers, forcing stiffer competition amongst the worker, and so, driving wages down, and thus, prices, generating greater profit for the capitalists, who can use this money to invest in the nation, which would improve lives, resulting in better standards of living, etc. Secondly, economic development tends to lead countries through several periods, the most advance stages of which usually results in a country having minimal to zero population growth, or a negative population growth. In addition, rather than forcing limits, which is impractical, it is much wiser to follow Malthus, who predicted the calamity of over population, by sponsoring education, and offering free higher education.


Yes. The earth does not have the resources to support our rapidly expanding population. Just in the U.S. alone we've decimated our iron and coal supplies, 36 states have been facing water shortages for over the last year and if the U.S. plans to start fraking for gas to be able to not be dependent of foreign imports by 2030 we'll have even more severe potable water problems remember folks the human body can only survive 3 days without H2O, crops and livestock are also dependant on it. The U.S. holds the majority of the worlds helium we're selling it for $1.50 a balloon when we could see serious deficits by 2021 oh yeah I left out that due to a law passed in 1995 and not rescinded we must sell all of our helium stores by 2015. I've been stating for years that schools from grades one on need to be teaching resource economics and population control this forum only proves my point. Spend one day when your home sick or hungover on the internet viewing U.N.'s 150 world sites constantly watched for possible wars because of water, those are just crisis points. Review the Ogallala Aquifer which waters the U.S. grain belt which are all watered via irrigation it's not an endless supply. That is only the tip of the iceberg for the U.S. where our population is only growing 2.5 children/woman. Then read some Peter H. Beard* for the BS on conservancy/population issues taking place in Africa and as you have evoked Malthus you will see the sense in his justification against governments funding the poor. Read about the Senkaku Island dispute over a 7 sq. km. piece of land with shoals harboring oil and how this could be a prelude to a Japan/U.S. military conflict with China. Or Oxfords study extrapolating that OPEC has overestimated their oil reserves by 1/3 and the critical conflicts that could/will take place with the fall of OPEC.
SERIOUSLY OPEN YOU EYES AND DO A COUPLE DAYS WORTH OF RESEARCH. Not BS websites or terror mongers. Or read Ehrlich's The Dominant Animal.


*I'll send you a great Beard quote if you message me. His language is brusque.
19028 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Mid-Atlantic
Offline
Posted 11/17/12 , edited 11/17/12

Hintkin wrote:

Why should we restrict reproduction?

Having a big population has this very important resource, LABORERS... Without the field workers, who will do the job? Will the company be still functioning without people who's doing the hands-on jobs?

For example, a mining company will not be able to drill a mining site if they only have 1 worker on that area..
Even if that 1 worker is a brilliant multitasking person.It will only make mining production slow with all the machinery he's working on..
Same in the education field.. If there is only one teacher who handles 5 subjects, that will be difficult to handle and may have many complications.. If there are 5 teachers in all of that 5 subjects, the job will make it easier and less complication..
A lot of business people will increase the economy of one country and makes it more profitable.. More companies established, more job openings to offer to the nation.. For me that's the biggest advantage of a country with a large population like China.

Of course, the country's population should be controlled at the same time but if only there is proper education, I guess this will not be the case.


How is it that prior to 1950 with a population 1/2 of what it is today human beings created and supplied electric, water and gas pipelines across the majority of the U.S. and Europe? Created and manufactured cars, airplanes, built ships and trains and powered them. And while doing so managed to feed the majority of the population. Even if the labor numbers dropped companies would have profit margins. Britain succeeded brilliantly prior to 1900 with I believe a third of today's population. Remember they essentially were the presents technological starting point they create steam compressed engines.
19028 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Mid-Atlantic
Offline
Posted 11/17/12

blackguitar wrote:

As an example, China did this. Then you look at Japan trying to encourage people to have more children. Severe overpopulation is sucking resources dry, so we are headed in a pretty ugly direction. It's not more people that makes humanity better, it's the quality of people, and too many have proven how insidious they are, though no one is perfect.


Thank god someone else can view a wider perspective of this calamity.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/17/12 , edited 11/17/12

Boganis wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

No. Because Overpopulation creates a larger pool of potential workers, forcing stiffer competition amongst the worker, and so, driving wages down, and thus, prices, generating greater profit for the capitalists, who can use this money to invest in the nation, which would improve lives, resulting in better standards of living, etc. Secondly, economic development tends to lead countries through several periods, the most advance stages of which usually results in a country having minimal to zero population growth, or a negative population growth. In addition, rather than forcing limits, which is impractical, it is much wiser to follow Malthus, who predicted the calamity of over population, by sponsoring education, and offering free higher education.


Yes. The earth does not have the resources to support our rapidly expanding population. Just in the U.S. alone we've decimated our iron and coal supplies, 36 states have been facing water shortages for over the last year and if the U.S. plans to start fraking for gas to be able to not be dependent of foreign imports by 2030 we'll have even more severe potable water problems remember folks the human body can only survive 3 days without H2O, crops and livestock are also dependant on it. The U.S. holds the majority of the worlds helium we're selling it for $1.50 a balloon when we could see serious deficits by 2021 oh yeah I left out that due to a law passed in 1995 and not rescinded we must sell all of our helium stores by 2015. I've been stating for years that schools from grades one on need to be teaching resource economics and population control this forum only proves my point. Spend one day when your home sick or hungover on the internet viewing U.N.'s 150 world sites constantly watched for possible wars because of water, those are just crisis points. Review the Ogallala Aquifer which waters the U.S. grain belt which are all watered via irrigation it's not an endless supply. That is only the tip of the iceberg for the U.S. where our population is only growing 2.5 children/woman. Then read some Peter H. Beard* for the BS on conservancy/population issues taking place in Africa and as you have evoked Malthus you will see the sense in his justification against governments funding the poor. Read about the Senkaku Island dispute over a 7 sq. km. piece of land with shoals harboring oil and how this could be a prelude to a Japan/U.S. military conflict with China. Or Oxfords study extrapolating that OPEC has overestimated their oil reserves by 1/3 and the critical conflicts that could/will take place with the fall of OPEC.
SERIOUSLY OPEN YOU EYES AND DO A COUPLE DAYS WORTH OF RESEARCH. Not BS websites or terror mongers. Or read Ehrlich's The Dominant Animal.


*I'll send you a great Beard quote if you message me. His language is brusque.


The amount we produce at the moment is sufficient to keep almost everyone sufficiently supplied with food, electricity, etc. In fact, even if we do not consider the plans for the various governments of the world to switch to renewable power, we probably still have enough natural resources to supply everyone if resources was more evenly distributed and more wisely distributed. The problem is not that we do not have the resources to sustain the Population (we do), it is simply because the world lives in a way that is unsustainable and at the expense of the rest of the world. In fact, these nations tend to have a more or less even and stable population growth of two children per two parents.

In short, no, just because you don't want to trim down on your excesses doesn't mean the world is unsustainable.
19028 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Mid-Atlantic
Offline
Posted 11/18/12

longfenglim wrote:


Boganis wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

No. Because Overpopulation creates a larger pool of potential workers, forcing stiffer competition amongst the worker, and so, driving wages down, and thus, prices, generating greater profit for the capitalists, who can use this money to invest in the nation, which would improve lives, resulting in better standards of living, etc. Secondly, economic development tends to lead countries through several periods, the most advance stages of which usually results in a country having minimal to zero population growth, or a negative population growth. In addition, rather than forcing limits, which is impractical, it is much wiser to follow Malthus, who predicted the calamity of over population, by sponsoring education, and offering free higher education.


Yes. The earth does not have the resources to support our rapidly expanding population. Just in the U.S. alone we've decimated our iron and coal supplies, 36 states have been facing water shortages for over the last year and if the U.S. plans to start fraking for gas to be able to not be dependent of foreign imports by 2030 we'll have even more severe potable water problems remember folks the human body can only survive 3 days without H2O, crops and livestock are also dependant on it. The U.S. holds the majority of the worlds helium we're selling it for $1.50 a balloon when we could see serious deficits by 2021 oh yeah I left out that due to a law passed in 1995 and not rescinded we must sell all of our helium stores by 2015. I've been stating for years that schools from grades one on need to be teaching resource economics and population control this forum only proves my point. Spend one day when your home sick or hungover on the internet viewing U.N.'s 150 world sites constantly watched for possible wars because of water, those are just crisis points. Review the Ogallala Aquifer which waters the U.S. grain belt which are all watered via irrigation it's not an endless supply. That is only the tip of the iceberg for the U.S. where our population is only growing 2.5 children/woman. Then read some Peter H. Beard* for the BS on conservancy/population issues taking place in Africa and as you have evoked Malthus you will see the sense in his justification against governments funding the poor. Read about the Senkaku Island dispute over a 7 sq. km. piece of land with shoals harboring oil and how this could be a prelude to a Japan/U.S. military conflict with China. Or Oxfords study extrapolating that OPEC has overestimated their oil reserves by 1/3 and the critical conflicts that could/will take place with the fall of OPEC.
SERIOUSLY OPEN YOU EYES AND DO A COUPLE DAYS WORTH OF RESEARCH. Not BS websites or terror mongers. Or read Ehrlich's The Dominant Animal.


*I'll send you a great Beard quote if you message me. His language is brusque.


The amount we produce at the moment is sufficient to keep almost everyone sufficiently supplied with food, electricity, etc. In fact, even if we do not consider the plans for the various governments of the world to switch to renewable power, we probably still have enough natural resources to supply everyone if resources was more evenly distributed and more wisely distributed. The problem is not that we do not have the resources to sustain the Population (we do), it is simply because the world lives in a way that is unsustainable and at the expense of the rest of the world. In fact, these nations tend to have a more or less even and stable population growth of two children per two parents.

In short, no, just because you don't want to trim down on your excesses doesn't mean the world is unsustainable.


I agree with you and what you have stated is very true the problem in this is that world governments have been aware of countless viable studies and models that all but prove correct the fact that the earth cannot sustainably support more than +/- 9 billion (mind you some studies stretch this number as high as 40 billion but the reasonable scientific and intellectual communities support the data around 9 billion. There always are a few who want to make a name and money for themselves no matter what the cost and then you have your deluded Rousseauians who think that for lack of a better phrase that god not man will prevail, I prefer to look on the conservative side and would prefer to have humans not existing in a Blade Runner like world) human beings at the current rate of consumption, a number we should reach sometime around 2030, that minimally takes into account that many developing countries will more than exceed proposed consumption rates (typically population numbers will decrease in these circumstances) because everyone wants what they do not have and always seem to feel they deserve to have everything that they want whether they need it or not. Governments have had data warning of these possibilities since Malthus's paper in 1798 and two hundred years later even with models proving the correctness of his figures not a single government is preparing its population. A great deal of this because of a small percentage of people who feed off of the population, yes over inflated greed. Look for studies on population and resources done at M.I.T. during the 1970's, interesting information.
Banned
31571 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / The Void.
Offline
Posted 11/25/12 , edited 11/26/12
You are talking about the immoral act of eugenics. How can you even stand for that?

According to a study, the world is capable of housing 44 billion humans, but that is only possible if the worlds runs on sustainable wasteless energy, and properly distributed resources, efficiently used resources, and recycles all waste.
3388 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 11/27/12 , edited 11/27/12

-Vega- wrote:

You are talking about the immoral act of eugenics. How can you even stand for that?

According to a study, the world is capable of housing 44 billion humans, but that is only possible if the worlds runs on sustainable wasteless energy, and properly distributed resources, efficiently used resources, and recycles all waste.


Well for one, because most people suck, and we don't need more of them.
And second, because I don't see how it's so immoral.

I've heard that "the world is capable of many more" argument so many times. And yes, it might be true that the world technicly has the capacity to house that many people... But do WE have the capacity of it? Are we capable of handling a society concisting of that many people?
In our current situation, no. We don't. And we won't for a long while, which is why that argument is useless.

Besides, do we WANT 44 billion people waltzing around? Do we want to live on a planet that is jam-packed with people? I know I don't.
Have you seen how people live in the most crowded cities around the globe? It sucks.
Banned
31571 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / The Void.
Offline
Posted 11/27/12 , edited 11/27/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:


-Vega- wrote:

You are talking about the immoral act of eugenics. How can you even stand for that?

According to a study, the world is capable of housing 44 billion humans, but that is only possible if the worlds runs on sustainable wasteless energy, and properly distributed resources, efficiently used resources, and recycles all waste.


Well for one, because most people suck, and we don't need more of them.
And second, because I don't see how it's so immoral.

I've heard that "the world is capable of many more" argument so many times. And yes, it might be true that the world technicly has the capacity to house that many people... But do WE have the capacity of it? Are we capable of handling a society concisting of that many people?
In our current situation, no. We don't. And we won't for a long while, which is why that argument is useless.

Besides, do we WANT 44 billion people waltzing around? Do we want to live on a planet that is jam-packed with people? I know I don't.
Have you seen how people live in the most crowded cities around the globe? It sucks.


You are a indoctrinated fool that thinks is a free thinker and enlightened. You will never realize the truth to your ways. What you are thinking of is murder. Can't you see how immoral that is?

I never will never reply to you ever again. You are just like DomFortress. An opinionated ass that can never change his mind. Even when the truth in is your face, you will deny it, and you will deny it after you watch this video, which is truth.

They are already controlling the populations and they intend to KILL YOU right NOW.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNpmT0W3uyk
3388 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 11/27/12

-Vega- wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


-Vega- wrote:

You are talking about the immoral act of eugenics. How can you even stand for that?

According to a study, the world is capable of housing 44 billion humans, but that is only possible if the worlds runs on sustainable wasteless energy, and properly distributed resources, efficiently used resources, and recycles all waste.


Well for one, because most people suck, and we don't need more of them.
And second, because I don't see how it's so immoral.

I've heard that "the world is capable of many more" argument so many times. And yes, it might be true that the world technicly has the capacity to house that many people... But do WE have the capacity of it? Are we capable of handling a society concisting of that many people?
In our current situation, no. We don't. And we won't for a long while, which is why that argument is useless.

Besides, do we WANT 44 billion people waltzing around? Do we want to live on a planet that is jam-packed with people? I know I don't.
Have you seen how people live in the most crowded cities around the globe? It sucks.


You are a indoctrinated fool that thinks is a free thinker and enlightened. You will never realize the truth to your ways. What you are thinking of is murder. Can't you see how immoral that is?

I never will never reply to you ever again. You are just like DomFortress. An opinionated ass that can never change his mind. Even when the truth in is your face, you will deny it, and you will deny it after you watch this video, which is truth.

They are already controlling the populations and they intend to KILL YOU right NOW.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNpmT0W3uyk


Please don't compare me to Dom. I am not like him.
Honestly, how can you even say that? It may very well be that I am willing to change my mind, provided you can give a compelling case.

First of all, how is it murder? Murder is ending the life of someone that already exists. That is not what I am talking about here at all, and certainly not like what is shown in that video.

As for the video -- well it was mighty scary. And I'm saying that as someone who is generally paranoid.
However, all that is there are lots of claims, but no links to any source providing proof.
Not that I'd be surprised. I only drink water from my fridge, that has gone throught the purification process and what not. Simply because I don't trust the water coming straight from the spring.

But still, no proof in the video, only claims.
20582 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / A suburban town i...
Offline
Posted 11/29/12
Fear not my children. For when I go and conquer the world I will shoulder the problems that come with this debate. Until then I believe that what should be handled before we address this are the main factors that support an idea against allowing free reproduction which is a birth given right to us as people.
The issues of:
-not producing enough to be able to handle consumer wants and needs
-allowing multiple ways throughout the world in which a family have what they need to be able to support the family
-having options in which the new batch of babies will have a future in whatever it is they so desire to pursue
and finally
-where we're gonna put them all because we are gonna run out of space here on earth eventually.

There's also other issues such as the effect pollution is going to have on the future, crime rates and activity, schooling, etc. but we'll handle these a group at a time. As we, as humans, have showcased in an inability to be able to multi-task so much at any given time. Hopefully by the time my generation starts getting to the point where we have more people in power positions these won't just be theories anymore but rather, practices.
Banned
31571 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / The Void.
Offline
Posted 11/29/12 , edited 11/30/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:


-Vega- wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


-Vega- wrote:

You are talking about the immoral act of eugenics. How can you even stand for that?

According to a study, the world is capable of housing 44 billion humans, but that is only possible if the worlds runs on sustainable wasteless energy, and properly distributed resources, efficiently used resources, and recycles all waste.


Well for one, because most people suck, and we don't need more of them.
And second, because I don't see how it's so immoral.

I've heard that "the world is capable of many more" argument so many times. And yes, it might be true that the world technicly has the capacity to house that many people... But do WE have the capacity of it? Are we capable of handling a society concisting of that many people?
In our current situation, no. We don't. And we won't for a long while, which is why that argument is useless.

Besides, do we WANT 44 billion people waltzing around? Do we want to live on a planet that is jam-packed with people? I know I don't.
Have you seen how people live in the most crowded cities around the globe? It sucks.


You are a indoctrinated fool that thinks is a free thinker and enlightened. You will never realize the truth to your ways. What you are thinking of is murder. Can't you see how immoral that is?

I never will never reply to you ever again. You are just like DomFortress. An opinionated ass that can never change his mind. Even when the truth in is your face, you will deny it, and you will deny it after you watch this video, which is truth.

They are already controlling the populations and they intend to KILL YOU right NOW.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNpmT0W3uyk


Please don't compare me to Dom. I am not like him.
Honestly, how can you even say that? It may very well be that I am willing to change my mind, provided you can give a compelling case.

First of all, how is it murder? Murder is ending the life of someone that already exists. That is not what I am talking about here at all, and certainly not like what is shown in that video.

As for the video -- well it was mighty scary. And I'm saying that as someone who is generally paranoid.
However, all that is there are lots of claims, but no links to any source providing proof.
Not that I'd be surprised. I only drink water from my fridge, that has gone throught the purification process and what not. Simply because I don't trust the water coming straight from the spring.

But still, no proof in the video, only claims.


I'm sorry, but you are a failure of a human being blinded by ignorance and arrogance. You are as fanatic as a religious zealot who thinks that everything he knows is right. You also just like those religious fanatics that try to convert others to your religion which you call science. You follow scientific beliefs as if they are dogma. You are total fool because your mind is so close minded.

Watch this video and do some research on population reduction: To the Elites that control this prison planet you are nothing but cattle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dIaSPniVow





806 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Charleston, SC
Offline
Posted 11/30/12
I think this has two answers.

A) Scientific
-Is population expansion a threat to human existence?
-Is population control theoretically plausible?
-Does population control potentially negatively affect human evolution?

Hypothetically if population control were feasible, and human population growth were a threat to human existence...and there was little evidence of detrimental affect on human evolution, THEN scientifically yes. Yes it should be institutionalized.

B) Ethical-Social
-Is population control a threat to human civil rights?
-Does population control favor certain demographics?
-What about Religion?

This is a simple No to population control. There is too much chance of going past responsible governing, right into genetic dictatorship. Better that we educate ourselves of the danger of irresponsible population growth. And actually evolve past porn addicted slobbering animals.
3388 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 12/2/12 , edited 12/2/12


You do a lot of judging here. You say I am arrogant and ignorant. As fanatic as a religious zealot a close minded fool.
You say I follow scientific beliefs as if they are dogma... Do you have any basis for this?
What exactly did I say that made you come to these conclutions? Please explain this to me.

Because for someone who accuses others of being arrogant, ignorant and a fanatic for his cause, you sure give off the very same vibes.
After all, YOU are the one calling me a fool for not believing in what you believe in, something I never did.
So who is really the fanatic one?
Hypocricy I believe it is called...
Unless, of course, you can explain to me exactly why I am all of those things, and also why you are not.

I don't understand why you're being so hostile either. I never said that what you're claiming isn't true. I never even mentioned population reduction through anything but controlled breeding until you did.
And even after you did, I never said that what you said was false. I just said that I didn't have enough to go on to agree or disagree.

As for the POPs thing... well I'd like to believe that. But I've searched, and I can't find examples of where it's used other than "in foods, water and pest-killing products". Which isn't really helping much. I can't avoid all food and water.
I'd be very grateful if you could help me out in this matter.
25369 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / West-Central Florida
Offline
Posted 12/7/12
Yes. The simple fact of the matter is that the people of our generation are already reproducing--the problem being that the only ones doing so are completely and utterly stupid. The intelligent people of our time are all waiting for the time when they know that they could succeed with a family by preparing for years and years for whenever that time may come.

This could potentially be an evolution of the human race unfolding before our very own eyes (I don't want to hear any crap from you religious people.)

Have you ever seen the movie Idiocracy? The people who made the story for that movie may have actually hit the nail on the head.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.