Proposal to reduce global population

TeddyTedson

Now that we're at a global population of 7 Billion and breeding at an alarming and unsustainable rate, here's an idea about how we can control the human species population.

Everyone is born with the right to reproduce 1.25 children.

However, a couple could choose to have a family of 3 children if they are willing to pay the state a fee, while also having to raise a set fund to act as the child's welfare fund.

The couple who would only have 0.5 of "child reproduction credit", could buy the remaining 0.5 from a governing body who would use the money to provide child welfare for primary and secondary children born in regular numbered families, I.E. Families ≤ 2.
To be clear here, the family who are now opting to have 3 children must pay a fee, we'll say €20,000 for now, I haven't worked out the figures yet. This will be used by authorities towards child welfare payments.
However, they must also raise an additional €20,000 for their third child, who will not receive any money from the state. But to ensure the welfare of the child the couple will effectively be raising their own welfare for the child in advance of the conception.

Then there's the issue of some people who wish not to have any children. They would be able to sell their credit to anyone who was interested in having an additional child. Again we'll say at a fee of €20,000 for arguments sake, however this would not be for 1.25 children, instead it would just be for 1.0 child. The 0.25 would effectively be lost in this scenario. Also if the buyers are a family over 3 children, they would not receive the state child welfare and again would have to raise their own funds.


That's a very rough draft of a possible solution to your problem. Is this a direction people would be willing to explore. Feedback and amendments are most than welcome.

biko

Sounds a little bit like Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal. An essay from 1729, where he suggests that the Irish eat their own children

AngryBollix

world war 3

Red Hand

Pick them off randomly with your rifle when you go postal?

Stinicker

The population of places like Ireland need to increase, Countries like Mali and Niger having an average of 6 to 8 children per women with nothing but poverty, disease and famine is where the reduction need to be made. Africa has around 1billion people but in reality it should be only around 200million. The continent could produce enough food for the entire planet yet it is so corrupt and mismanaged that they import food and export immigrants instead.

Chuck Stone

Trying to control birth rates is a dangerous thing to do. Also, leaving such a plan in the control of the government would ensure it would become a ****ing mess.

The best way to reduce the population of the world is for poor countries to become developed and have social safety nets.

Poverty = babies.

KilOit

world end this year anyway

Red Hand

Stinicker wrote: »

The population of places like Ireland need to increase, Countries like Mali and Niger having an average of 6 to 8 children per women with nothing but poverty, disease and famine is where the reduction need to be made. Africa has around 1billion people but in reality it should be only around 200million. The continent could produce enough food for the entire planet yet it is so corrupt and mismanaged that they import food and export immigrants instead.

To be fair, from 1600s onwards, Ireland's biggest export has been people.

joseph brand

Now that we're at a global population of 7 Billion and breeding at an alarming and unsustainable rate

Any proof?

I don't understand why anyone here (Ireland) would worry about this. It's not exactly overcrowded. Plus, there's room for another 3-5 billion worldwide.

Time better spent trying to improve the lives of the 7 billion rather than find ways to cull.

SafeSurfer

How about another proposal. Anyone seriously concerned about global overpopulation tops themselves.

44leto

joseph brand wrote: »

Any proof?

I don't understand why anyone here (Ireland) would worry about this. It's not exactly overcrowded. Plus, there's room for another 3-5 billion worldwide.

Time better spent trying to improve the lives of the 7 billion rather than find ways to cull.

& billion people all after the same limited resources such as water, food, materials, energy and poluting the same oceans and biosphere.

44leto

SafeSurfer wrote: »

How about another proposal. Anyone seriously concerned about global overpopulation tops themselves.

Is the option to top someone else an option??

Ellis Dee

biko wrote: »

Sounds a little bit like Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal. An essay from 1729, where he suggests that the Irish eat their own children

That's right, except that his proposal was a brilliant piece of satire. What he actually proposed was that the Irish rural poor be provided with state assistance to enable them to farm children to provide cheap food for the urban poor. On the face of it, it made great economic sense, and indeed some of the powers-that-be took it seriously and expressed their shock: "Look here, old fellow, we can't just butcher children, you know!":eek: Of course, Swift was a great humanist and was only trying to draw attention to the plight of the impoverished masses and prick the consciences of those who would have been in a position to do something about it.:)

Anyway, it's not the global population in terms of numbers that's the problem, but the impact that those people have on the environment. Reduce the population of, say, Nepal from the present 27 million to 7 million and it will make less difference than reducing the population of New York by one million.:cool:

RichieC

sounds like a fking nightmare. There wouldnt be enough poor for the wealthy to get rich off.

Benny_Cake

Stinicker wrote: »

The population of places like Ireland need to increase, Countries like Mali and Niger having an average of 6 to 8 children per women with nothing but poverty, disease and famine is where the reduction need to be made. Africa has around 1billion people but in reality it should be only around 200million. The continent could produce enough food for the entire planet yet it is so corrupt and mismanaged that they import food and export immigrants instead.

If Africa could produce enough food for the entire planet, why do you think it needs a reduction in population of 80%? Some African countries are overpopulated, in other countries such as Zambia or Mozambique there is a great deal of productive land lying fallow. You do realise Africa isn't just one country?

Coriolanus

Saltpetre in the water supplies.

smellslikeshoes

A better way to limit population would be work to improve the conditions in poorer countries. Education and prosperity leads to lower birth rates.

amacca

OP......your plan is too complicated for the common folk to get behind it (or even understand it)

give them a number (say 2) and if they exceed that then have an extremely unpleasant penalty or something

do I have to do everything around here?

joseph brand wrote: »

there's room for another 3-5 billion worldwide.

Perhaps...but do I really want them...does amacca really want or need them, that's what you got to ask yourself?

how likely is it they can be of use to amacca by bringing forward the date at which he will be able to transfer his consciousness to a computer and thus achieve immortality of sorts etc

I'd say its unlikely...whats more likely is they will just be whiney moany humans with rights who compete with amacca for valuable ever dwindling resources thus making life harder on him.........and if amacca shares they will just walk all over him etc

joseph brand wrote: »

Time better spent trying to improve the lives of the 7 billion rather than find ways to cull.

foolish naive boy!

RichieC

We just need to knock cyclical consumption and infinite growth fairy tale on the head. It cannot be sustained. Build things that are high quality and built to last again.

TeddyTedson

joseph brand wrote: »

Any proof?

I don't understand why anyone here (Ireland) would worry about this. It's not exactly overcrowded. Plus, there's room for another 3-5 billion worldwide.

Time better spent trying to improve the lives of the 7 billion rather than find ways to cull.

Some are suggesting there could be a food crisis. Isn't this why the uprisings happened in the likes of Libya, rising food prices?
China are buying a lot more meat than they used to that's why were are seeing meat prices rise.
Amazing to think that in 1927 there were 2 Billion humans on the planet.

Ted_YNWA

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Everyone is born with the right to reproduce 1.25 children.

who are these people who have the 0.25 children ... get more of them ...

Problem solved

Pherekydes

Why don't those who feel the population is too large do something about it?

Temptamperu

Sounds great, I could do with 20,000 grand. That sounds much more fun than changing ****ty nappies and going to parent teacher meetings.

Jim_Kiy

Plenty of vast open tracts of land in Russia for any country that gets over-populated:)
Apart from Africa there's is also countries full to exploding like the phillipines.
I think we will have to get moon colonization under way asap!

Suryavarman

Hey Teddy, did you ever think of changing your name to Thomas Malthus?

TeddyTedson

Suryavarman wrote: »

Hey Teddy, did you ever think of changing your name to Thomas Malthus?

Hi. I had to google him. I'd never heard of him before:o

VinnyTGM

RichieC wrote: »

We just need to knock cyclical consumption and infinite growth fairy tale on the head. It cannot be sustained. Build things that are high quality and built to last again.

But then companies aren't going to make any money.

TeddyTedson

Pherekydes wrote: »

Why don't those who feel the population is too large do something about it?

Could you elaborate on this please?

Sindri

The population of the world will increase till about 2050 when there will be 9 billion people and then it will decrease. The only problem with rising populations is that most are in poor countries (Asia) and these countries are looking at less water as the glaciers of the Hindu Kush continue to reduce. This will lead to higher food prices, as it becomes more difficult to produce food as well as the fact that there will be a middle class in these countries buying more expensive food products (meat). The head of J.P. Morgan already thinks that there is a bubble in agriculture.

We have the resources and the ability to ensure every person can be fed, it's just that us actually doing so is highly unlikely. As well as this we and the Bangladeshi, are probably ****ed from climate change which brings extreme and erratic weather as well as rising sea levels.

This will be ****ty century for us all.

RichieC

VinnyTGM wrote: »

RichieC wrote: »

We just need to knock cyclical consumption and infinite growth fairy tale on the head. It cannot be sustained. Build things that are high quality and built to last again.

But then companies aren't going to make any money.

Good companies will survive. It will also create a very heallthy second hand market. We dont have any other option. Anyone calling for a cull in numbers before exploring other avenues shouldnt be let have opinions imo :pac:

44leto

RichieC wrote: »

We just need to knock cyclical consumption and infinite growth fairy tale on the head. It cannot be sustained. Build things that are high quality and built to last again.

But that wouldn't work, one a societies and government function is finding something for the people to do. High consumption means high employment and wealth for a populace and that is what we all want. That is human nature any other system that goes against that grain fails.

Sindri

44leto wrote: »

But that wouldn't work, one a societies and government function is finding something for the people to do. High consumption means high employment and wealth for a populace and that is what we all want. That is human nature any other system that goes against that grain fails.

Yes human production rates increase. It is the natural way. If it didn't our civilization would end.

Suryavarman

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Hi. I had to google him. I'd never heard of him before:o

I doubt too many have heard of him. It's worth noting that his theories earned economics the nickname "the dismal science".

Back on topic, why do you think this population level is unsustainable?

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Could you elaborate on this please?

People complaining about the world being overpopulated should get the ball rolling on shrinking population and reduce the population by one.

blatantrereg

It's important that something is done to prevent further increase in the human population of the world in general and in South/Southeast Asia especially. Decreasing the population would be strongly preferable.
Tax incentives might work but they might also lead to social problems if too extreme.
Education, campaigns to change attitudes and create awareness, and the provision of free contraception would not have any apparent risks associated with them.

the groutch

Just airdrop crates of condoms on all the 3rd world countries, simples

RichieC

Sindri wrote: »

44leto wrote: »

But that wouldn't work, one a societies and government function is finding something for the people to do. High consumption means high employment and wealth for a populace and that is what we all want. That is human nature any other system that goes against that grain fails.

Yes human production rates increase. It is the natural way. If it didn't our civilization would end.

So were told. I dont personally believe our civilisation hinges on the waste of resourses and production of cheap,plastic shyte from china.

LH Pathe

I am sick to death of people them rural folk dunno how good they got it. must feel like king of the vista ye look out on?

Sindri

RichieC wrote: »

So were told. I dont personally believe our civilisation hinges on the waste of resourses and production of cheap,plastic shyte from china.

Moore's law is what I was referring to.

amacachi

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Trying to control birth rates is a dangerous thing to do. Also, leaving such a plan in the control of the government would ensure it would become a ****ing mess.

The best way to reduce the population of the world is for poor countries to become developed and have social safety nets.

Poverty = babies.

Meh, provide millions of free condoms to impoverished areas and sue the fcuk out of churches and companies who spread misinformation about HIV/AIDS. What would be dangerous about that method of trying to control birth rates?

44leto

RichieC wrote: »

So were told. I dont personally believe our civilisation hinges on the waste of resourses and production of cheap,plastic shyte from china.

You don't have to take part, you could be a new age sort of guy and live in a tent on the basics, its your choice. But don't suggest it for others.

RichieC

Sindri wrote: »

RichieC wrote: »

So were told. I dont personally believe our civilisation hinges on the waste of resourses and production of cheap,plastic shyte from china.

Moore's law is what I was referring to.

What I propose wont effect that. We can still push tech forward. There will be a market for the latest kit. Right now our resourse allocation is arse ways. We waste billions of tons of it moving produce to countries that can produce their own. We spend finite oil reserves building tremendious amiounts of poor quality low end crap to fill land fills with.All to keep leeching investors happy. We are wreakin this planet for their sake.

Madness. Total madness.

Sindri

RichieC wrote: »

What I propose wont effect that. We can still push tech forward. There will be a market for the latest kit. Right now our resourse allocation is arse ways. We waste billions of tons of it moving produce to countries that can produce their own. We spend finite oil reserves building tremendious amiounts of poor quality low end crap to fill land fills with.All to keep leeching investors happy. We are wreakin this planet for their sake.

Madness. Total madness.

Yes but it is part of our advancement. The modern world, the one in which we live reflects, was born out of the industrial revolution, and we are still part of it. The age of oil, the current age, is necessary, without it we would not have the chance, to actualise you could say, our civilization. Poverty would still be rife throughout the world and people would not have the chance to a better life, like many in Asian and Africa do now. It will end or we will perish as a civilization.

Pherekydes

amacachi wrote: »

Meh, provide millions of free condoms to impoverished areas...

Wouldn't we be better off reducing the numbers of those who consume the most?

Isn't the thread about resources?

Spread

Get everyone in the whole wide world to have a bit of howsyourfather just once a week. (Give Up Your Auld Sins)

Doc Ruby

RichieC wrote: »

We spend finite oil reserves building tremendious amiounts of poor quality low end crap to fill land fills with.

Its a bit more complicated than that, lower quality stuff is also cheaper, if you want higher quality its usually available at a cost - for example I'd rather spend €150 on a pair of boots that will last me ten years than spend €50 on boots that will only last two, but a lot of people don't or can't see it like that.

Mind you, longer lasting stuff would direct investment towards things that do bring something substantially new to the table, so should be beneficial in the long term.

RichieC

Sindri wrote: »

RichieC wrote: »

What I propose wont effect that. We can still push tech forward. There will be a market for the latest kit. Right now our resourse allocation is arse ways. We waste billions of tons of it moving produce to countries that can produce their own. We spend finite oil reserves building tremendious amiounts of poor quality low end crap to fill land fills with.All to keep leeching investors happy. We are wreakin this planet for their sake.

Madness. Total madness.

Yes but it is part of our advancement. The modern world, the one in which we live reflects, was born out of the industrial revolution, and we are still part of it. The age of oil, the current age, is necessary, without it we would not have the chance, to actualise you could say, our civilization. Poverty would still be rife throughout the world and people would not have the chance to a better life, like many in Asian and Africa do now. It will end or we will perish as a civilization.

Poverty is still rife. A lot of those poor countries resourses are being gobbled up by our civilisations expansion.

Like it or not, our current situation is unsustainable and big changes must come.

I fully expect the political right to push politically "easy" options like third world population reduction while maintaining the current paradigms ills. Norhing will change under these visionless shills.

BraziliaNZ

For anyone blaming poor countries. We in the west consume something like 300 times more than a Bangladeshi person does in their lifetime. So who's to blame really?

RichieC

Doc Ruby wrote: »

RichieC wrote: »

We spend finite oil reserves building tremendious amiounts of poor quality low end crap to fill land fills with.

Its a bit more complicated than that, lower quality stuff is also cheaper, if you want higher quality its usually available at a cost - for example I'd rather spend €150 on a pair of boots that will last me ten years than spend €50 on boots that will only last two, but a lot of people don't or can't see it like that.

Mind you, longer lasting stuff would direct investment towards things that do bring something substantially new to the table, so should be beneficial in the long term.

Stuff would be more expencive. Good tthings are. They can be bought second hand though by those of less means.

They have a lightbulb in a US fire station thats been going over 100 years. Building them to last a few months is criminal.

Spread

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

For anyone blaming poor countries. We in the west consume something like 300 times more than a Bangladeshi person does in their lifetime. So who's to blame really?

If we didn't ......... there would be more Bangladeshis and Vietnamese going to bed hungry

Doc Ruby

RichieC wrote: »

Stuff would be more expencive. Good tthings are. They can be bought second hand though by those of less means.

They have a lightbulb in a US fire station thats been going over 100 years. Building them to last a few months is criminal.

Sure planned obsolescence is definetely wrong, its the broken window fallacy, but its almost impossible to distinguish between that and the ineradicable fact that lower quality stuff, using cheaper materials and less quality assurance, is just cheaper.

There's no easy answer for that one as long as there are people that prefer or have no option but to spend less in the short term.

Anyways I'm not really worried about energy shortages or peak what have you, the population will even out as lifestyles improve in developing countries, and we have more than enough resources to support them too.

RichieC

Doc Ruby wrote: »

RichieC wrote: »

Stuff would be more expencive. Good tthings are. They can be bought second hand though by those of less means.

They have a lightbulb in a US fire station thats been going over 100 years. Building them to last a few months is criminal.

Sure planned obsolescence is definetely wrong, its the broken window fallacy, but its almost impossible to distinguish between that and the ineradicable fact that lower quality stuff, using cheaper materials and less quality assurance, is just cheaper.

There's no easy answer for that one as long as there are people that prefer or have no option but to spend less in the short term.

Anyways I'm not really worried about energy shortages or peak what have you, the population will even out as lifestyles improve in developing countries, and we have more than enough resources to support them too.

Were already seeing energy wars. The oil were finding now is very expencive to extract at great ecological cost and more expencive to refine.

I wish I had your optimism.