Proposal to reduce global population

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.

af_thefragile

Bah, there's enough in the world for everyone. The world can theoretically easily sustain a population of more than 10 billion.

Problem comes with the uneven distribution of wealth and resources.

When you have 10% of the population consuming 90% of the resources, the rest 80% will be left scrambling for the left 10%.

Even the poor working class people in USA consume more in a day than an African family would consume in a week.

If we only learn to use less resources, make more efficient use of what we have and waste less, then there will easily be enough for everyone. But alas, for the rich to live their luxurious lives, the poor need to starve and die.


Easy to say we need to reduce population. Worse is some people use it as a justification for wars and not helping the poor.
Real problem lies in the gluttonous consumption that plagues the developed world which starves the developing world of precious resources.

Pherekydes

af_thefragile wrote: »

When you have 10% of the population consuming 90% of the resources, the rest 80% will be left scrambling for the left 10%.

Did 10% of the population just up and leave?

Sindri

RichieC wrote: »

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.

The current system is what will save us. Its what allows social mobility.

Doc Ruby

RichieC wrote: »

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.

Well just to give you an idea, if you covered the bits of the Sahara where nobody is living right now with solar cells, we'd be producing some fifty times the global energy production, and once you have the energy you have everything.

Not to say there isn't plenty to be worried about, there are brand new methane plumes kilometers wide that research teams north of Russia have found, suspected to be among the causes of the Permian extinction which saw off over three quarters of land based life and 95% of sea based life, there's a new strain of tuberculosis which has just appeared, immune to all treatments, and a great big rock could drop out of the sky and gouge a five mile wide and deep strip out of the equator and all the king's horses and all the king's men would have about a chance in three of even spotting it before humpty dumpty started burning up in the atmosphere.

But resource depletion and overpopulation aren't significant threats in my opinion.

RichieC

Sindri wrote: »

RichieC wrote: »

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.

The current system is what will save us. Its what allows social mobility.

Not in the long term it won't. We rely too heavily these days on the wisdom of economists. An ideology masquerading as a science.

af_thefragile

One can't ignore the burdern of debt put on the poorest of the countries by the IMF and World Bank.

These countries are absolutely broke. They owe billions to these financial institutions. But they have corrupt leaders who gobble up significant amounts of GDP and only pay the interest on the debt these countries are in and the loan and interest keeps compounding as the country spirals into ever greater debt. Then if the country has any resources it can make use of, large corporations come in, gobble up these resources for next to nothing while keeping the country leaders satiated by bribing them so they can continue to live their luxurious life while the big corporation can exploit cheap labour and resources.

This spiral leads to poverty. Poverty leads to people not being able to sustain their children and this in turn leads to "overpopulation".

A country is only "overpopulated" when there are too many poor people living in one place. If the people are wealthy then no one complaints. Cities like New York, Hong Kong, Tokyo are massively over populated but because of there being enough resources this isn't much of a problem for the ones who live there. On the other hand a city like Mumbai is considered an endemic as most of the people who live there live in desperate poverty.

RichieC

.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

RichieC wrote: »

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.

Well just to give you an idea, if you covered the bits of the Sahara where nobody is living right now with solar cells, we'd be producing some fifty times the global energy production, and once you have the energy you have everything.

Not to say there isn't plenty to be worried about, there are brand new methane plumes kilometers wide that research teams north of Russia have found, suspected to be among the causes of the Permian extinction which saw off over three quarters of land based life and 95% of sea based life, there's a new strain of tuberculosis which has just appeared, immune to all treatments, and a great big rock could drop out of the sky and gouge a five mile wide and deep strip out of the equator and all the king's horses and all the king's men would have about a chance in three of even spotting it before humpty dumpty started burning up in the atmosphere.

But resource depletion and overpopulation aren't significant threats in my opinion.

Oil isnt just energy. Yes solar cells in the sahara is a great idea. That wont replace plastics and the millions of products created by the petro chemical industry.

Clean water is a big problem too. Glaciers that feed large swaths of india are running out. Americas underground water supply is running out.

Global sea levels are rising too. Its going to create a large refugee crisis at some stage.
What appears to be ample resourses now will quickly turn into a nightmare scenario.

Hibernianeggs

Why don't people just have 0.25 of a child.

Doc Ruby

RichieC wrote: »

Oil isnt just energy. Yes solar cells in the sahara is a great idea. That wont replace plastics and the millions of products created by the petro chemical industry.

Clean water is a big problem too. Glaciers that feed large swaths of india are running out. Americas underground water supply is running out.

Global sea levels are rising too. Its going to create a large refugee crisis at some stage.
What appears to be ample resourses now will quickly turn into a nightmare scenario.

This are good resources:

http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2005/08/30-isnt-oil-essential-for-plastics.html
http://www.livescience.com/2639-water-shortage-myth.html

Sea levels true, but that isn't a resource based problem.

RichieC

Doc Ruby wrote: »

RichieC wrote: »

Oil isnt just energy. Yes solar cells in the sahara is a great idea. That wont replace plastics and the millions of products created by the petro chemical industry.

Clean water is a big problem too. Glaciers that feed large swaths of india are running out. Americas underground water supply is running out.

Global sea levels are rising too. Its going to create a large refugee crisis at some stage.
What appears to be ample resourses now will quickly turn into a nightmare scenario.

This are good resources:

http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2005/08/30-isnt-oil-essential-for-plastics.html
http://www.livescience.com/2639-water-shortage-myth.html

Sea levels true, but that isn't a resource based problem.

Wouldnt bother with that bllogspot.. Ive seen them argue that locally produced food is worse for the environment that crap flown from india.. And the author is just a rude curmugen..

Theres a lot of right wing misinfo about water crisis via junkscience.com. When I get to my pc i'll follow up on that.