First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply How long till we start restricting childbirth.
Humms 
10572 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / CAN, ON
Offline
Posted 5/5/16
Already happening sir, you just don't see it, plus I believe in natural selection, because we all know there are some questionable people in our world.

If it wasn't meant to live there is a damn good reason behind it, or not really, because everybody loves genocide, and humans practice it on a daily. So really, is having more than one child acceptable? Personally there are parents out there who shouldn't have children to begin with, but hey; lets just stick it in so we can get payed for it already.

So the question is, does the amount of people that die outweigh the amount of children being born? Well, no.

No matter how hard it is to believe that it's true, people are being born left and right, and the only way to maintain balance..... Yes, you guessed it, An alternative lifestyle that strays from the norm. All the trans gender, gender neutral, people who simply shut themselves out of society, because there is actually no possible chance for them to have a relationship, they are like shades.

So we actually don't need to be restricted anymore, isn't that grand?! Have as many kids as you want, because later on down the road, the next generation of children won't even know what a relationship is, and we will slowly become independent individuals who will all become manikins in the hopes of finding equality.

Hurray

Don't blame me for triggers, I got bored so I like to think of it as creative writing plus GD has like nothing to talk about.
9800 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Johnstown, PA, USA
Offline
Posted 5/5/16
I'm certain that we'll see some kind of pandemic within the next few centuries.
628 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Sacramento, CA
Offline
Posted 5/5/16
I don't think overpopulation will ever be a REAL problem. As we continue progressing as a species contraception will become more and more readily available to the underprivileged nations that are responsible for our overpopulation.
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 5/5/16
The Malthusians have been saying this for over 200 years.


"Overpopulation" is not an actual problem for the species.
2277 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
42 / M
Offline
Posted 5/5/16 , edited 5/5/16
Population is NOT a problem. Our planet can handle a whole lot more than we have now. Resource management is the problem. We currently produce enough food to feel 10 billion people each year and we only have 7 billion people on this planet. Demographers estimate that at least 20 billion people lived on earth between the years 8000 B.C. and 0 A.D - so it's a fact that our planet can handle a lot more people than it currently has. Also plankton make up 3 times more biomass than all 7 billion humans combined. Right now we could literally fit the entire human race in New Zealand and the rest of the planet would be wide open.

Overpopulation is a MYTH. It's our overconsumption and waste that is a major problem. Look at all the food we throw away each year. Think of how many animals died to be thrown in the garbage. Look at how much nonrenewable energy we use. Eventually we will have to create a system that is self sufficient and renewable and get away from fossil fuels which we could do right now if we wanted to. They just don't want to spend the money to do so. Food is not a problem with technology and proper resource management. And remember we have "theoretically" limitless supplies of water. Our world's level of water is always the same. The ONLY problem is economics. It might cost more but we could create plenty of drinking water for everyone if we wanted to spend the time, energy and money to do so.

And for all the people thinking we are having more children these days, that's simply not true of nearly every nation on this earth. The US definitely has seen a major decline in births along with most other countries. The few countries that may be seeing an increase don't even put a dent in the rest of the world's decrease so you don't have to worry about everyone having too many kids. It's just not happening. I'm more worried about economics, government, corruption and that nasty jello mold they sell at my local store than I am population. That jello mold will kill you long before overpopulation will.
19563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / NYC Metro Area
Offline
Posted 5/5/16
As countries develop people stop having children. Once the developed world joins the rest of us we are going to see a giant population drop. It will be interesting to see how economies are going to have to cope with that.
17031 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / In a van down by...
Offline
Posted 5/5/16

Ryulightorb wrote:

So as the population grows and multiplies we will eventually need to restrict childbirth.

Im not saying we do it now but alot of people like to avoid the subject and say it's borderline eugenics but the matter of the fact is the world will eventually become full and peoples "Right to have children" will start to become privileges (i would imagine)


How long do you think we are away from laws being enforced to reduce the climb in population.

I would say 50-100 years.


Won't happen in the US just for the fundie Evangelicals alone who poop out babies 'cause Jesus.
801 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / F
Offline
Posted 5/5/16
In human geography there is something known as the demographic transition model ranging from 1 to 5 one being a country with no development and five being highly developed. No country is considered 1 anymore but the population increase is from countries at 2 because they have a low number of women working and a lack of contraceptives. Eventually every country will reach 4, where countries like the US, Japan and most European countries are at(5 is kind of theoretical right now). Our population will eventually plateau maybe even go down a little bit. I don't think we really have to worry about it we need to focus more on regulating consumption.
16789 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 5/5/16

tkayt wrote:


Rujikin

We might use more resources per person but its sustainable based on our resources vs people. Asia and Africa don't have enough resources to support themselves.

Take a look at where those resources are coming from. Some of the resources come from these very places.


Because they are super cheap due to slave labor. We have to pay our workers a decent wage or they refuse to work.


1stladyent wrote:


Rujikin wrote:


We might use more resources per person but its sustainable based on our resources vs people. Asia and Africa don't have enough resources to support themselves.


You know, about 70-90% of agriculture and commodities from Africa alone is being exported to the US? They can't feed themselves because their resources are being taken away. Asia has a hand in every sector and industry in the US. If you take their sources out of the equation, you'll have a crumbled infrastructure.

Yes, let's have Africa and Asia STOP exporting all their resources (including money) to the West (Mainly the US). And see just how sustainable you think it's going to be.

They have plenty of resources. That's why many of the countries on that side of the world have an increasing GDP. Plus they don't eat a whole damn cow every day per person.


They have a lot of luxury goods that they get high prices for. If it wasn't for all the problems in the region then they would export high value luxury goods to us and purchase food, which we produce in huge surplus.

Asia has cheap goods. We used to only trade for exotic and luxury goods with asia due to the high shipping costs and produce industrial goods ourselves. There is no reason we cannot go back to that. Slave labor produces very cheap goods.

It will be quite sustainable. Infact the recycling industry will boom like none other due to the vast quantity of resources we waste. Actually if you think about it we are stockpiling valuable resources in our garbage dumps for the future.

They don't have enough food and that is one of the two most important resources someone can have.
56915 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / NY
Online
Posted 5/5/16 , edited 5/5/16
The USA is very stable at the moment thanks in large part due to immigrants. If it were not for the influx of immigrants, the USA would actually be losing population due to most Caucasians having less than 2 kids on average among other factors. Hispanics are actually becoming the dominant portion of the population due to this decline and their relatively higher birthrates. Last I had read, Hispanics will overtake the current majority of the USA population by 2035.

Speaking on a more global level, I did a research paper on this in college in regards to China and its one child policy. I found that the policy was too effective. Using the UN, US, and China statistical data, I was able to extrapolate the birth and death rates for the population under the policy long term and found China was heading toward negative population growth come the mid 2030s if they continued with that policy. Not surprisingly, China recently repealed that policy, likely after seeing the same trend I found in the statistics, and is now in better shape for population stability long term.

The idea there is a global population crisis is very misleading. Population issue are concentrated regionally and will require the governments of those regions to take appropriate action. Most first world countries have actually drastically lowered birth rates from decades ago. The longer life spans due to technological and medical advancements have offset the issue this may cause in terms of raw population, but fewer young people is an economic crisis for a lot of first world countries due to the often socialist polices which require paying for the care of the aging population with fewer young workers being born. First world countries need to focus on balancing the aging issue, not having too many people which is a misconception. If anything, most first world countries should be encouraging more baby making to help with caring for the aging population both physically and financially. This isn't even considering things like war, disease, famine, and such which makes it all the more complicated. But, in general, the idea there are too many people on the planet is just not true. The issue is more there are too many elderly and impoverished people who don't have the means to care for themselves or their family.
37389 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Online
Posted 5/5/16
It doesn't work. Google all of the nightmarish scenarios that have happened in real life in China - the biggest and worst childbirth restriction practitioner on the planet. It has backfired on them in so many ways. It's almost comical.
3005 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/5/16

Daisuki-Suki wrote:

War is the optimal solution. We don't need to mange birth rates... we need to mange death rates.



Well, according to the original Mobile Suit Gundam series,


So yeah, I agree with that sentiment. XD
17189 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 5/5/16
Why can't we focus on reducing pregnancy first?
599 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Connecticut
Offline
Posted 5/5/16

TheOriginalStraynge wrote:

Population is NOT a problem. Our planet can handle a whole lot more than we have now. Resource management is the problem. We currently produce enough food to feel 10 billion people each year and we only have 7 billion people on this planet. Demographers estimate that at least 20 billion people lived on earth between the years 8000 B.C. and 0 A.D - so it's a fact that our planet can handle a lot more people than it currently has. Also plankton make up 3 times more biomass than all 7 billion humans combined. Right now we could literally fit the entire human race in New Zealand and the rest of the planet would be wide open.

Overpopulation is a MYTH. It's our overconsumption and waste that is a major problem. Look at all the food we throw away each year. Think of how many animals died to be thrown in the garbage. Look at how much nonrenewable energy we use. Eventually we will have to create a system that is self sufficient and renewable and get away from fossil fuels which we could do right now if we wanted to. They just don't want to spend the money to do so. Food is not a problem with technology and proper resource management. And remember we have "theoretically" limitless supplies of water. Our world's level of water is always the same. The ONLY problem is economics. It might cost more but we could create plenty of drinking water for everyone if we wanted to spend the time, energy and money to do so.

And for all the people thinking we are having more children these days, that's simply not true of nearly every nation on this earth. The US definitely has seen a major decline in births along with most other countries. The few countries that may be seeing an increase don't even put a dent in the rest of the world's decrease so you don't have to worry about everyone having too many kids. It's just not happening. I'm more worried about economics, government, corruption and that nasty jello mold they sell at my local store than I am population. That jello mold will kill you long before overpopulation will.



^^ Spot on post. In fact much of the talk about overpopulation can be traced back to Nazis Eugenics and Neo-Malthusianism, The problem is both are considered to be defunct science. These are the same people that are concerned about Peak Oil, another huge myth that too many people believe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI-qAdlxctI
this is a good video on the topic


9299 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Australia
Offline
Posted 5/6/16

Ryulightorb wrote:


mbgod16 wrote:

Unfortunately the population isn't problematic with just child births but also people living long lives. In that case like a previous poster said war would be a more optimal approach towards population control. For anyone misunderstanding what I am trying to say my point is unless humans can greatly improve resource control and technology population will be an issue for the future and who knows how people then will try to regulate it. No I do not advocate war.


Well I hope for one our lives get extended I mean I don't wanna die till I'm over 200 personally and I'll happily never have kids if it meant I could haha



You really want to live until you're 200??
man iam 35 and i feel old and broken already. I dont even want to live to be old. Dont get me wrong i dont want to die but i dont want to be old and withered and useless.
Unless in the future to can replace body parts and internal organs easier..
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.