nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

UsernameInUse

Why would we talk about reducing the population.

Earth is massively underpopulated.

Iwasfrozen

UsernameInUse wrote: »

Why would we talk about reducing the population.

Earth is massively underpopulated.

You're joking right? The only landmass I can think of that is underpopulated relative to it's ability to support life is North America.

boodee

How about giving everyone an age limit.....lets say everyone only lives till 60 years old. Then pop a pill and off you go.
There'd be no population laying around decaying in nursing homes, being kept alive with drugs and vibrating beds.
The countries that have too many babies and kids wallowing in poverty could be adopted by the thousands of people who can't have kids and would love to give them a home and future. If governments worked together in foreign adoption instead of lettting kids starve because of red tape we'd get somewhere.
Ironically, it costs around €20,000 for a few rounds of ivf, so instead of paying to concieve you could pay to save a life from a poverty laden country.

Or, you could just bring back Hitler, he had some choice plans for over population.

RichieC

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You're joking right? The only landmass I can think of that is underpopulated relative to it's ability to support life is North America.

you'd fit every human on earth in texas with a home size plot per family, in fact.

water and food distribution might be an issue, though. And pollution.

bnt

RichieC wrote: »

you'd fit every human on earth in texas with a home size plot per family, in fact.

water and food distribution might be an issue, though. And pollution.

"an issue", he says. Ya' think? Sheesh. Page 7 of this thread, and you think you're the first to trot out the "Texas" fallacy? Yes, fallacy - I went in to detail several pages ago. tl;dr version: if it was that simple and affordable to ship essential basics around the world, permanently, it would be happening already. What would be the environmental cost of doing that all day, every day?

Mike 1972

Why the fup do people think that food and/or space are the sole constraints defining a sustainable level of population ?

Particularly people with computers and broadband connections..........

boodee wrote: »

Or, you could just bring back Hitler, he had some choice plans for over population.

Only in neighbouring countries.

He was quite keen on increacing the population of the Reich...A not unusual interest among crackpot dictators.

Suryavarman wrote: »

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

This guy seemingly agrees :eek: Its a stupid idea though our leaders are in denial about the fact that we are all fuked so the best way to save the planet is by killing yourself
Surely an even better way would be to kill the leaders -by suicide attack if necessary ?

bnt

Suryavarman wrote: »

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

That's exactly what I'm going to do. Eventually. More importantly, I won't be creating any more people in the meantime. If that means the future will be like the film Idiocracy, well, that's not my problem. :rolleyes:

token101

TeddyTedson wrote: »

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.

Does 'that is the stupidest idea I've ever heard' count as feedback? Aside from the fact that it is a hilariously overcomplicated and daft idea, do you really think that in a world where we can leave 200+ million starve everyday that an idea like this would be even be implementable? 20 odd countries from Europe can't even agree how to manage their money FFS!!! What about people who continue to have 5, 6, 7 children and don't have any 'credit'??? Will we sell them on to highest bidder?? Or do we call pest control?

I suggest you send this 'draft' to Jim Corr, signed by the NWO shadow government, with an Illuminati stamp, on Freemason headed notepaper. His head will explode.

Nothingbetter2d

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You're joking right? The only landmass I can think of that is underpopulated relative to it's ability to support life is North America.

also antartica, and australia

bnt

Even National Geographic Magazine is carrying pieces about population now. Take a look at the map in this article, and you might see what I mean when I tell people that arguing about possible global overpopulation is a distraction from tackling the very real overpopulation problems that already exist in some parts of the world.

Doc Ruby

bnt wrote: »

Even National Geographic Magazine is carrying pieces about population now. Take a look at the map in this article, and you might see what I mean when I tell people that arguing about possible global overpopulation is a distraction from tackling the very real overpopulation problems that already exist in some parts of the world.

You do realise that there is hundreds of times more useable energy drenching the planet than we are currently using?

Capt'n Midnight

Doc Ruby wrote: »

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.

Except that €150 fashion shoes are made buy kids earning a fiver a week and may not be any better quality than ones bought for €20

far too many firms cashing in on their brandname

Capt'n Midnight

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

much easier fix to deal with overpopulation that isnot infringing on basic human rights

offer a FREE VASECTOMY to any man with 2 or more children already

In India they pay men to have this done , ain't working

ArtSmart

TeddyTedson wrote: »

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.

Wouldnt buying yourself a girlfriend by simpler? Maybe get in a bit of exercise, the odd movie - a pint or two...

El Siglo

I'd say climate change will act as a 'positive check' on population, no need for the OPs suggestion the 'invisible hand' will correct the current predicament.

ArtSmart

China's policy has ended in major probs far as i remember.

anyway, nonsense thread

later12

bnt wrote: »

I had an idea a while ago for a "baby bond" scheme. The idea was that people wanting to breed should be obliged to put away a lump sum in advance, to be repaid (with interest) over the next 18 years.

Three obvious problems there.

(i)
Firstly, that would essentially debar poor people from having children. And yet we know that many children who are born poor can become highly valuable to society, if society is willing to invest in them from an early stage.

A topical example is Michael D Higgins, President of Ireland. He was born in a rented flat and his parents couldn't even afford to keep him fed and clothed, so he had to be sent to live with relatives. Through scholarships and social benevolence he was able to further himself and become, in most people's eyes I believe, an asset to the state.

Another example is Bill Cullen. His parents would never have been able to pay your 'baby bond', and he would never have gone on to be the businessman he is today, nor have done so much philanthropic work for Irish young people in return.

Furthermore, a lot of public figures whose parents might have been able to pay this "baby bond" have gone on to cause far more damage in social and monetary terms than anything even wealthy parents could afford.

So the idea of parents paying a bond to guarantee against their child's future damage is not only improbably pessimistic in terms of the potential of man to make progress on his humble beginnings,but it assumes that the transgressions of the bourgeoisie will be payable for by the bourgeoisie... and I'm not quite sure that Pops Fingleton's Garda salary could really have paid for his son Finger's calamities.

(ii)
Parents typically expire when a child approaches or reaches his middle age. This is a biological fact. Inflation is an economic fact. What's to happen if the £40 5s 9d Liam Lawlor's folks 'put in' for him all those years ago doesn't pay for his 2000's prison fee or the cost of his tribunal hearings?

(iii)
A couple's greatest expenses are often in the early years of starting a family, when they are balancing a mortgage and the cost of having children with inadequate salaries on account of their relatively young ages. It would have to be some sort of risk weighted insurance if anything. And that still doesn't solve the above points, most particularly the first point.

TeddyTedson

ArtSmart wrote: »

Wouldnt buying yourself a girlfriend by simpler? Maybe get in a bit of exercise, the odd movie - a pint or two...

Who buys a girlfriend

Isn't that just like pay a hooker but only doing it wrong:eek:

The comments about Hitler are interesting. Although I am grateful of how he advanced modern medicine, although he apparently had a number of Jews killed, he is actually responsible for more peoples lives being saved today, compared to how many he was supposed to have killed. It's funny how life works out sometimes.

Alien life forms will be laughing in 50 years time of how we ignored both climate change and our unsustainable increasing population.

TeddyTedson

ArtSmart wrote: »

China's policy has ended in major probs far as i remember.

anyway, nonsense thread

You'll be eating those words when their is a food shortage in the decades approaching. It's already happening my dear child, open your eyes to this issue.
A nice little read though

bnt

Doc Ruby wrote: »

You do realise that there is hundreds of times more useable energy drenching the planet than we are currently using?

Yes, but so what? Where did I, or anyone else, say that energy was the fundamental problem? Fresh water is more likely to be a problem, where it isn't already.

bnt

later10 wrote: »

Three obvious problems there.

(i)
Firstly, that would essentially debar poor people from having children. And yet we know that many children who are born poor can become highly valuable to society, if society is willing to invest in them from an early stage.
...

The problem there is that you've fallen for the "Beethoven Fallacy", the idea that because we value certain people today, that they - and only they - had to be born; and that had they - and only they - not been born the world would be a poorer place overall. But this ignores the way that people are a product of their total environment, from birth well in to adulthood.

Using your example of Michael D Higgins ... had he not been born, we would not have had him, but we might have had someone else even better. Micky D wasn't the Micky D you know from the moment he was born, he was only a potential Micky D, and who's to say he was the only potential Micky D out there? Had Beethoven not been born, we would not have had Beethoven ... but we could have had another Mozart.

Can we say how many potentially great scientists or artists will never reach their full potential, because of the circumstances in to which they were born? I don't think we can, and overpopulation is one of those circumstances that affects the lives of people in overpopulated countries. I don't think Ireland was overpopulated when Michael D Higgins was born, was it? That was one disadvantage that he didn't have to fight, unlike (say) a young man in a Mumbai slum, or a girl too tired and hungry to stay awake in a crowded schoolroom in Eritrea.

As for your point (ii), I don't quite understand what you're getting at. I did say "with interest", implying that inflation would be offset. My "baby bond" could be structured as an investment in a mutual fund, or whatever - that's a detail for the financial advisors to worry about.

Ditto for (iii) - that's a detail that could be adjusted to suit the circumstances, not a fatal flaw in my idea. If the "baby bond" is an investment, money would be doing more long-term good in there, earning interest, rather than in a current account or being spent recklessly. The actual withdrawals could be made flexible, not fixed.

Doc Ruby

bnt wrote: »

Yes, but so what? Where did I, or anyone else, say that energy was the fundamental problem? Fresh water is more likely to be a problem, where it isn't already.

Energy solves all problems. Need fresh water? Desalinate using energy. We really have an embarrassment of riches in earth.

later12

bnt wrote: »

The problem there is that you've fallen for the "Beethoven Fallacy", the idea that because we value certain people today, that they - and only they - had to be born; and that had they - and only they - not been born the world would be a poorer place overall. But this ignores the way that people are a product of their total environment, from birth well in to adulthood.

You've completely missed the point.

In bringing up Michael D Higgins and Bill Cullen and Liam Lawlor and Fingers Fingleton, I am not calling these individuals dispensible nor indespensible.

I am making a point that there is a serious ethical issue with arbitrarily choosing to advance the right to have children to the wealthy. It is far better to extend the right of limited live childbirths to all parents who can prove their suitability beyond purely financial requirements.

did say "with interest", implying that inflation would be offset.

For eighteen years? And what about the rest? An individual only truly becomes a burden or an asset after that age. The bulk of the gain or loss will be felt in adulthood.

tallaghtmick

WELCOME TO TERRA NOVA!!!!!!

bnt

later10 wrote: »

You've completely missed the point.

In bringing up Michael D Higgins and Bill Cullen and Liam Lawlor and Fingers Fingleton, I am not calling these individuals dispensible nor indespensible.

I am making a point that there is a serious ethical issue with arbitrarily choosing to advance the right to have children to the wealthy. It is far better to extend the right of limited live childbirths to all parents who can prove their suitability beyond purely financial requirements.

No, I think you've missed my point. I call it a bond because it gives the parents a solid, tangible stake in the outcome: an incentive to complete the job and do it right. It doesn't mean that money is the only requirement for the job - but the potential loss of money is an incentive to pay attention to all the other requirements.

If you tender for a construction job, you need to show that you have the financial resources to complete the job, in your tender. It takes more than that money to win the job, but if you do win it, you have to put up a "completion bond". The bond is forfeit (wholly or in part) if you don't complete the job to the required quality. If you do complete the job, you get it back.

Since parenting is not one single job but a series of jobs - and because it takes a long time - I'm talking about having the money repaid, with interest, when it's needed. Whether it's unplanned (e.g. a medical emergency) or planned (e.g. school fees): whatever. The money will be there when it's needed, because it was invested up front. If it's not all needed in the first 18 years: college fund, pension, whatever - it's gravy. Health, education, behaviour, economy: all those things society needs, they would be the criteria for ensuring the parents get all their money back. :cool:

Where would the money come from? Saving, of course. Or you could borrow it from parents or friends, which would then give them a stake in the upbringing of the child. If you ask someone to invest in your family, they're going to want to protect their investment. I don't agree with judging the potential parents by other criteria - what criteria could those be? Money speaks louder than words, and even the "worst" parents / grandparents / family can bring up a good child: if they have an incentive to do so, and help from others where useful.

But I don't understand your problem with the idea of interest working over 18 years. How do you think a mortgage works? You could look at a "baby bond" like a mortgage from the bank's point of view: they loan the money up front, and get it back slowly - and end up getting back more than they lent out, even after accounting for inflation.

This "baby bond" is just a thought experiment, of course, but the more fallacious "objections" I see to it, the more I have to think about the details, and it's actually looking more feasible than I first thought. It would be an investment in the next generation of people. As I keep saying: we don't need more people, we need better people.

af_thefragile

Who gives a **** about poor people. The less of them around, the better!

/sarcasm.

bnt

There is some good news on the population front, though: Latin America. For example, the birth rate in Brazil has dropped from 6.15 kids per woman in 1963, to less than 1.9 today, and similar trends are happening across the region.

Tomk1

There's so much in this thread, difficult to pick any single point, so I'll throw in a few comments without quoting.

1. The OP idea sounds like kids for the rich none for the poor, even though richer families produce less offspring than commoners.

2. Age of conception doesn't come up, in richer countries, many wait untill an older age to have children, first kid say between 30-40, so that's 10/20 years off reduced pop increase, also people in their 60's can have children.

3. African solution, Cyber-sex leads to no-pop increase, so that 'nasty technology' is actually good, rather than sending food to support high populations in underdeveloped countries, flood them with PC's and superfast broadband.

the population of China is on the decline since the introduction of the internet -unsourced madeup info

4. In India that social-responsible religion wants to pay/reward Indians to have more catholic babies. snippet; pope Africa condoms 'Catholics are not producing enough babies'

5. Before the invention of the Steam Engine train, the worlds population was at a plateau, with the introduction of the train to America, it allowed the colonisation of vast areas of land, with the ability to transport food, resourses & people rapidly. The population of the world mushroomed as a result of the industrial revolution not only due to trains but the ability for cities to sustain higher populations.

6. The nexted wave, there is room for the next population expansion, with global warning, large amounts of land is becoming available, Alaska, Canada, even as mentioned the melting of glaciers in India.

Also 2/3 rd's of the Earth is Ocean with nill human population, so rather than spending 30 trillion dollars on some new war, colonise the Oceans.

7. Water-famine is affecting the US but I'm sure they will work around it. Note in London people drink the same water many times (15+ ??).

8. Energy 'yet another crisis' : it's time to growup and go-nuclear. more people have died from pesky hippo-bites than drunks running nuclear plants -same source but true

Conclusion: If one was inclined, best way to reduce the population reproductive no's is to pollute the water supply with estrogen. Edit.. or get a few ideas from James Bond movies

Nothingbetter2d

there is a solution

establish a luner and mars colony

move anyone healthy and educated enough to these colonies

send all middle men and politicians towards the sun at full speed.

Lisa2011

I believe china's ban on families having more than one child is not working.

Governments around the world cant tell women how many kids they should have. Its their right to have as many as they want as long as they cant take care of them without state aid