[jhon15]

Population control is mandatory.miting families to 1 or 2 children as a matter of government policy runs into an issue of civil rights.Look where population are living. Places like New York City and Chicago are overcrowded while we have open deserts and plains in the west. Intelligent management would allow people to live in more open conditions and enjoy more freedom. This will require a social change from the ground up, and liberals will not have it.

[Tim the Plumber]

It's a daunting concept, but we're likely going to need some sort of population control eventually.

What about the idea of offering people cash incentives to get sterilised? And perhaps charge parents who want to have large families to pay for the sterilisations of the others.

I guess that might increase the spread of std's from people thinking they no longer need condoms though.

Any other ideas?

Yes I have other ideas;

THERE IS NO NEED FOR THIS EVIL DRIVEL!!!!!

There is no problem with food supply except the use of huge quantities of it for fuel which is causing the deaths of at least 10 million peoiple per year now.

With increased population and increased wealth the capacity to green the deserts and to use hydroponics is beyond any limity that human populations will achieve this century or the next.

This century will see the spread of humanity to space. Orbital habitats will form from the development of resource extraction, mining, of asteriods in earth orbit. There are enough such bodies and resources out there that the next few millenia are totally taken care of.

Stop spreading evil ideas.

[alancalverd]

What, exactly, is evil about not making babies?

I have a deep loathing of all things religious, but I can't bring myself to criticise monks and nuns for their celibacy.

[the5thforce]

only educated people realize we need to slow down making babies so we end up getting a global brain drain without actually decreasing the population, what we really need is vastly better global education, much more government transparency, and widespread access to contraceptives/birth control. the current human social system of trying to control the least educated people subliminally through media and government is the failure of the most educated people, were literally wasting human neurons when we dont fill those neurons with the proper logical abstract associations

western countries have also fallen deeply into the trap of thinking educating girls will solve all human problems when in reality the girls arent educated because the boys arent educated, we need to be educating boys and girls about the often vast differences of what each gender wants out of life in adulthood and then work to serve both genders needs if we want those adults to mutually cooperate on a global scale

the delusion of our time is thinking males are easier to please than females when the simple truth is the global male suicide and homicide rates are double or more the female rates which indicates males have the most complex problems in life and thus males need the most education to cope with those problems starting from a very early age, we arent preparing boys for the clearly fatal struggles they face in adulthood (mostly boredom/under-stimulation and a massive lack of social-counselling and therapy)

at the end of the day were all chemical creatures who need our fiercely pressure-evolved biochemistry kept in check in order to function cooperatively/efficiently, males and females have different biochemical thresholds/mechanisms which means that if males are unbalanced its only because society is failing those males

if the goal is to minimize 'chaos' in its many forms including uncontained population growth, war, aggression, we need to work much harder to educate our males with male-specific coping mechanisms to minimize their natural lust for chaos in response to boredom, and we need to stop peddling the western pipe dream that the genders are anywhere near equal. black is not white and male is not female, a diverse global population requires increasingly complex organization and individualized education that acknowledges our differences rather than hiding from the truth

[dhjdhj]

This whole area causes more irrational thinking than any other. The organisation in the UK that promotes population reduction believes that the country will only be able to support about 20 million population in the relatively near future and we had better take steps to start reducing soon. Even if we reduced the birth rate to nil i.e. no new births and no immigration, with the rapid increase in life expectancy, currently about 7 hours every day, it would still take about 40 years to get down to 20 million. No wonder the government isn't taking their calls. What reduced birth rates do is fail to provide sufficient wealth producers to pay for rapidly ageing populations. This is a real problem for developed economies. Without immigration UK birth rate is 1.8 births per female of child bearing age. We need 2.1 to provide sufficient resources for an ever more ageing population. In Germany the indigenous birth rate is 1.3 despite having a considerable history of past immigration it needs considerable immigration to balance the books. Many developed northern  European populations are actually in decline and are causing considerable concern. China has now relaxed its' one child policy because there is a serious problem with population balance. However on both a national and global basis there is a limit to the population that can be sustained by the resources available but I doubt whether this can be achieved artificially by decree. There is a direct inverse relationship between birth rate and prosperity, so by far the best population control is to increase prosperity in areas where birth rate is high. This has to be enhanced by a significant increase in the retirement age. Our children may have to work until they are 80 to balance the books. It will not be easy but the first world will have to find a way of increasing the wealth of the second and third worlds and then balance the wealth providers with the non producers (children, pensioners, the infirm, AND the lazy) so that the global market still works. As I am a pensioner good luck with that, but I am sure that draconian measures against any section of mankind simply wont work.

[alancalverd]

We need 2.1 to provide sufficient resources for an ever more ageing population.

this is a ridiculous myth. What matters is the "working fraction" of the population, i.e. the percentage between 20 and 60 years old. If the birthrate declines to below replacement level, the working fraction increases.

Many developed northern  European populations are actually in decline and are causing considerable concern.

Only to economists, who have no idea of how to model a decreasing population, politicians who preach "growth" with no concept of limits, and racists who make money out of the artificial fear that nonwhites will eventually outnmumber whites.

Fact is that Britain could be entirely and indefinitely selfsufficient with a population of 5-10 million, all of whom would be far wealthier than we are today, and our great grandchildren could live in that wonderful world instead of suffocating in each others' armpits if we simply reduced the birthrate to one child per woman for the next 100 years.  The trick is to do it ethically by persuasion rather than enforcement, which dangerously screwed the Chinese sex ratio.

[puppypower]

An interesting angle to view this topic from, is from the POV of natural selection. There are more poor people on the earth, than there are rich people. In terms of natural selection, from a purely biological sense, the poor have selective advantage in a natural sense. This is why they have the highest numbers.

This is logical, since being poor means lack of access to all the artificial ways, not found in the local nature, to compensate for biological deficiencies; science and medicine. The children that remain, have be innately fit, to compensate for the lack of good food, water, hygiene and treatment for sickness and disease. The poor will have higher attrition, but this only shows how selective the final cut is. From the POV of Darwin and Jesus, blessed are the poor. If we had a global disaster, the poor are used to hard times and their children are natural survivors.

The rich and better off, have the means to avoid all the environmental stresses of the poor. They also have a high level of artificial care to compensate for all internal and genetic deficiencies. This means a lower percent of optimize genetic specimens are passed forward. They persist due to artificial selection; under controlled conditions. There is a difference between natural selection and artificial selection. Artificial selection needs much more propping up. If there was a natural disaster, and the controls are gone, there will be high attrition.

Part of the reason for over population is due to applying artificial selection to more and more people. We wish to modernize the natural but this has a cost. As we add prosthesis to more and more poor, the result is the cost of medical care goes up, due to perpetuating genetic weakness and liabilities. Nature does not have all this science and medical overhead. Nature does it differently and fine tunes fewer humans to perfection.

[Robcat]

You control the population by asking all children at school, what they suggest we will do with seven thousand million dead bodies over the next few years.

Exposure to the problem that they will be exposed to as they grow up.

If no resonse some incentive must be found for men and women

Anyway...what DO YOU DO with these 7 billion bodies over the next few years

[Ethos_]

As a matter of fact, we already have a very efficient answer for the problem of overpopulation, it's called Nuclear War.

Let me be very clear; The only thing our stupid politicians appear to be very good at is starting and engaging in wars. And with the trend we now see developing world wide, I suspect number III is knocking at the door.

Am I anxious, of course not. And do I approve, again; OF COURSE NOT. But sadly we honest and sincere citizens have little to say about this issue. Some idiot somewhere, with an ego as large as Jupiter, and a military stupid enough to follow him to destruction will light the match to oblivion, and it may be sooner than you think.

It is a sad commentary on the nature of humanity; That we, the most intelligent specie on planet earth are more hostile to our own kind than any other. How does that saying go: "The inhumanity that humanity perpetuates  upon it's own kind."

Is the word "Humanity" becoming a dirty word?

Truth is,.... the word "Politician" is, was, and always will be the most profane of all.

 

[alancalverd]

As a matter of fact, we already have a very efficient answer for the problem of overpopulation, it's called Nuclear War.

I doubt it. The last one killed fewer people than the two conventional wars and the influenza epidemic that preceded it. In the next nuclear exchange the UK government will capitulate after the death of about 200,000 people - about 3 months' worth of new babies.   

[Tim the Plumber]

What, exactly, is evil about not making babies?

I have a deep loathing of all things religious, but I can't bring myself to criticise monks and nuns for their celibacy.

Forcing people not to have babies or killing people is evil.

Spreading lies such as the lie that we are over populated is evil.

[alancalverd]

But it isn't a lie. We only survive because of artificial fertilisers, without which crop yields globally would be 30 - 50% less, and the production of artificial fertilisers depends on burning fossil fuels, of which we only have a finite amount. Most populations are now critically short of drinking water: not only in the third world but in places like California.

It is entirely possible that our great-grandchildren could eke out a pathetic living with a population of 10,000,000,000 or more, but only a very evil man would wish it on them. On the other hand, if we took steps to limit the population immediately, we and every successive generation would benefit from an increasingly good standard of indefinitely sustainable living.

[Tim the Plumber]

But it isn't a lie. We only survive because of artificial fertilisers, without which crop yields globally would be 30 - 50% less, and the production of artificial fertilisers depends on burning fossil fuels, of which we only have a finite amount. Most populations are now critically short of drinking water: not only in the third world but in places like California.

Drivel. We use vast amounts of food as fuel. So much that at least 10 million people per year die of lack of food due to this artifical 70% increase in the price.

California has plenty of water. It has not enough to make it, a natural desert, grow as much high water requirement crops than the farmers want that's all.

Have you forgotten already the fuss over peak oil? It has not peaked and will not before we find better ways of making electricity.

It is entirely possible that our great-grandchildren could eke out a pathetic living with a population of 10,000,000,000 or more, but only a very evil man would wish it on them. On the other hand, if we took steps to limit the population immediately, we and every successive generation would benefit from an increasingly good standard of indefinitely sustainable living.

We have 7 billion today and use huge amount of surplus food for fuel. 30% increase in demand with increased use of good farming practice world wide will still leave plent for the starving people by using it as fuel industry.

[alancalverd]

Have you been to Mumbai or Kolkata? Witnessed a crop failure in Sudan? Life for many people on this planet is a miserable interlude before starvation. With no effort whatever, it could be made very comfortable indeed for everyone. What's your problem with that?

[Tim the Plumber]

Have you been to Mumbai or Kolkata? Witnessed a crop failure in Sudan? Life for many people on this planet is a miserable interlude before starvation. With no effort whatever, it could be made very comfortable indeed for everyone. What's your problem with that?

I have no problem with the world getting better. I want nobody to die of hunger or hunger related diseases.

That's why I consider the enviromental movement evil beyond compare.

The poorest couple of billion people on the planet pay 70% more for their food than they should. This has to be killing a goodly percentage of them. This has been happeneing for 20 years or so. That's way more people than died in the second world war and almost as much as Genghis and his boys did.

The idea that any of this horror is due to over population is simply a lie. It is due to poor governance and poor economic situations firstly and then helped along by the use of food as fuel.

The impact of all the green transfers of money from the rich world to the poor is to transfer money to the elites of the poor world. They are the kleptocrats who steal the wealth of these poor nations as is. It is them who are responsible for the horror primarily. By making the situation even more benificial for them to have loads of starving people to stick in front of the TV cameras it makes it even more rewarding for them to screw the poor.

What is most needed for the lot of the poor of the world to be improved is acess to such things as food, fuel, transport and information. This is happening, but it is happening inspite of the efforts of the green/communist/guilt trip lobby in the west.

[chris]

Population is the problem. Put simply, if we weren't here there wouldn't be any problem.

I really cannot understand why we relentlessly devote effort to discovering more and more ways to feed more and more mouths.

The energy cost of a human isn't confined just to the food that each eats; people need somewhere to live, heat and light to read by, clothes, blankets, entertainment.

Taken to the extreme, if we keep increasing the human population, it is unarguable that we will run out of space. At that point, measures would have to be taken to limit growth further.

So why are we waiting for the crisis, rather than making these points, intervening early and avoiding a catastrophe?

India tersely told the world at COP21 in Paris last autumn that it would be opening new power stations on a monthly basis to feed its population's hunger for energy. It challenged the West to solve the problem of climate change for it, because rich countries can afford to help out.

But the West didn't put a billion people in India. India did that itself. That's more than the population Europe and the US put together. And half of those people haven't got access to a toilet.

[the5thforce]

a huge factor is gonna be just radically different outlooks on life, mindless sex androids and mass homosexuality really only appeals to a certain type of media obedient westerner who already blurs the line between human and machine, these things will enhance life for some people but ultimately our biology is still optimized for a fairly simple system that were already pushing to the limits and likely maxing out a bit/approaching a biological ceiling

another factor is how long would people actually want to live before they wouldnt mind just voluntarily testing their luck at an afterlife, or perhaps being inserted into a minimum energy interactive virtual reality until they are ready to voluntarily pull the plug, and if this is the direction we go in we should be encouraging solid genetic family units and maximal quality of life while people are actually on earth

obviously until we manage to establish widespread free contraceptives, free abortion, free vasectomies for voluntary adults, a policy of stressing no more than 1 or 2 children, were best suited expecting population growth until we have no choice but to use our land vastly more efficiently, probably time to follow china's lead and invest in land expansion techniques, comprehensive planet restructuring of our oceans and continents to maximize functionality, continued expansion into space, thorough GMO testing and implementation, basically taking the reigns from nature and redesign our entire planet to match our intelligence, and all of this would require the U.N. to rapidly step up to the plate with diplomacy because there is no alternative, war and death is just the restart button in the infinite timeloop

there will always be an optimal use of every single atom in our solar system if we meet the challenge and fully assume our rightful inheritance as co-architects of existence

[Tim the Plumber]

Population is the problem. Put simply, if we weren't here there wouldn't be any problem.

I really cannot understand why we relentlessly devote effort to discovering more and more ways to feed more and more mouths.

The energy cost of a human isn't confined just to the food that each eats; people need somewhere to live, heat and light to read by, clothes, blankets, entertainment.

Taken to the extreme, if we keep increasing the human population, it is unarguable that we will run out of space. At that point, measures would have to be taken to limit growth further.

So why are we waiting for the crisis, rather than making these points, intervening early and avoiding a catastrophe?

Indian tersely told the world at COP21 in Paris last autumn that it would be opening new power stations on a monthly basis to feed its population's hunger for energy. It challenged the West to solve the problem of climate change for it, because rich countries can afford to help out.

But the West didn't put a billion people in India. India did that itself. That's more than the population Europe and the US put together. And half of those people haven't got access to a toilet.

This silly wrong headed argument has been made for centuries.

There is no practicle limit to poulation. The amount of resources and energy with which we can do stuff like build houses and green the desert is increased with more people.

Soon, in the next few decades, humanity will start to capture asteriods and mine them. The resources floating around the solar system are practically infinate. The potential populations that can be accomodated in extreme luxury in artifical habitats will be beyond anything we will be able to fill in the next thousand years and beyond.

[chris]

There is no practicle [sic] limit to poulation [sic]. The amount of resources and energy with which we can do stuff like build houses and green the desert is increased with more people.

Tim, you're of course entitled to your opinion, but you have ignored the fundamental point I made, which is what happens when the final square metre of Earth's surface has someone living on it? We will eventually run out of space, so there is a very real practical limit on population. But long before we reach that threshold, without careful stewardship we will have destroyed the planet as we know it.

I don't know about you, but the idea of living in a human-made anthill where the only creature alive on the planet is a human and where green open spaces exist only in virtual reality and peoples' imaginations fills me with horror...

[alancalverd]

I have no problem with the world getting better. I want nobody to die of hunger or hunger related diseases.

That's why I consider the enviromental movement evil beyond compare.

Would that be the environmental lobby to revert East Anglia to a natural swamp? But where would you grow wheat, vegetables and turkeys? Farming is an assault on the environment. You can't have it both ways.