0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
P.S We should at least urge the governments of all countries to pass birth control bill and limit 1 child per couple. Maybe that will make a huge difference.
(though that would have little impact as it would be immoral to kill their children) or better by starting with the most immoral people and then working up from there until the numbers have been brought back under control. Such a cull would be more moral than just standing back and leaving it to nature.
While I myself do not believe in morals and would kill an ant or a human without a second thought, if necessary.
but my feeling is that the govt won't need to set up a genocide programme, social pressure eg abuse in the streets, might occur. It is interesting to note that a number of obese people have reported abuse because of their weight and this could lead to suicides.
By the way, have you heard of Mars-One? I was on NewEnglandPhysics forum today, and I saw this topic that Pete posted which mentioned Mars-One. I did not know about it, hence, I had a quick peek and what I feel is that they just successfully scammed thousands of people and made 800,000 USD. I might be wrong here but hear me out. They want to initiate by sending 100 humans to mars. And... According to them own selves, sending 4 humans will cost them 6 billion USD. Let's just have some pity on them and say that the mission is to send 4 humans to mars and cut out the rest 96. They still won't be able to do so. The maximum donation they could have expected was, I'm being generous here, 2 billion USD. Now let's just assume that they did get 2 billion USD. But, who will give them the rest 4? I will be darned to hear any nation or company say that, they will sponsor them. Let's be practical here... The mission is not productive. Nations, on Earth have a lot of things to care of before they reach the point where they would have plenty spare for such things. Companies too have better projects to invest on, where they can expect a very good amount of return rather than this. So, why exactly did people donate to this project? I don't know. Why was this project ever thought of? Well, maybe they truly did want to send people to mars and did not really did a better research and as they came back to reality and figured out that this isn't something feasible (Funding wise), it turned into a scam. Or... it was a scam from first day onwards. Anyways, I really do commend the wits of the creator of such scam... Hmph... Project, PROJECT!
I might suggest that you go into hiding for a while. People don't take too kindly to genocide.A certain Mr Hitler paid the price for it, as did Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein, to mention but a few.
But who knows? Perhaps we'll have started to colonize Mars by then. After all we're already going to be sending people to live there for the rest of their lives in just a few years. In any case it's not my problem. I'll be long dead before that comes. Politicians aren't doing their jobs so the world will pay the price for not penalizing them for it. But as I said, not my problem.
The upside is that nobody needs to do anything to make life better for everybody - just make fewer babies.
I seem to remember a report saying that educating girls in developing countries reduced the birthrate as they had babies later and fewer per couple.
Probably, but unsustainable population growth is already affecting the UK, where education and contraception are apparently available to anyone who wants either, but the rate of teenage pregnancy is a serious concern to governments and do-gooders. The trick is to abolish all child benefits and to pay women a comparable sum if they are not pregnant. Say £500 every 6 months from the age of 10 to 60. You get one "bye" after which you lose the benefit permanently if you are pregnant, though it is restored if your child dies before the age of 16. There is a net saving to the exchequer, plus additional tax income from working women not taking maternity leave.
Go forth and multiply a lot less
The statistics, though, say the UK is below replacement rate.
So what you are actually worried about is the wrong people having more than their fair share.
According to UNICEF "women’s literacy rates in the least developed countries were 70% of those of men. The lack of education and literacy of women correlates with a high birth rate.
With a stable population of 5 million, the UK could be entirely selfsufficient on renewables, with a better standard of living than at present.
...And that's the reason I suggested genocide. Even if you somehow implement 1 child policy, It will take UK at least 120 years to cut down to 7.5 million population. I don't really think we have enough resources to last for 120 years.
So after losing the benefit, what's the incentive not to have 3?
Old people may have pensions and investments, but that money isn't just sitting in a box under their bed. Its the money produced from some other on going economic activity.
Quote from: cheryl j on 05/05/2015 08:41:14So after losing the benefit, what's the incentive not to have 3? If you can afford to feed, clothe and educate them, why not? But the state won't, and it would be a crime (it already is) to allow them to starve, so you will go to prison. On the other hand if you stop at 0 or 1 you will still receive £1000 per year, which is a fair incentive to do nothing.I'll make an exception for naturally-conceived multiple births: twins and more add fun to everyone's life.
Quote from: cheryl j on 05/05/2015 08:39:18 Old people may have pensions and investments, but that money isn't just sitting in a box under their bed. Its the money produced from some other on going economic activity. True, but that ongoing economic activity is being carried out by the "working fraction", i.e. those between 20 and 60 years old, which increases if the birth rate is below replacement level because the nonworking fraction under 20 is decreasing.
Until that magic number is reached, though, the plan would appear to be that poorer people need to make all the sacrifices so that a select portion of the population can carry on as usual. Don't reproduce, pay a huge portion of your income on energy taxes, and if it's not too much trouble, please kill yourself once you are too old to be exploited in your menial low wage job.
Well, okay, but then those absent under-20s are eventually absent 40 year olds.
but you have to get over that crest gently, where you will have a large number of elderly people dependent on others. Japan seems to be hitting that already. If that bump is too big, you end up with people clamoring for mothers to have more babies, and you are back to square one.
That in turn is expected to harm the pension system and other elements of social welfare. The impact in rural areas is predicted to be especially damaging, putting the very existence of some communities in danger.
just make fewer babies. The downside is that conventional economic indicators such as Gross National Product or average house prices, would fall. So the question is whether you want your children to inherit a better world, or better statistics.
So then what is Japan freaking out about?http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30653825
Experts warn the impact of the decline will harm Japan in various ways.A lowering of the number of people aged between 15 to 64 is predicted to lower potential growth and shrink Japan's GDP.A decline in the population is said by experts to have damaging consequences for Japan
Turn the entire of the Midlands into an agricultural area that feeds the entire UK.
... With a population of 5 - 10 million we could devote enough land to energy production to maintain our current standard of living with renewables, and still have enough area to grow all the food we need.
At that point Britain becomes an allotment for an overpopulated neighbouring country with a bigger armed forces.
Quote from: alancalverd on 08/05/2015 23:58:00... With a population of 5 - 10 million we could devote enough land to energy production to maintain our current standard of living with renewables, and still have enough area to grow all the food we need.At that point Britain becomes an allotment for an overpopulated neighbouring country with a bigger armed forces.
Quote from: RD on 09/05/2015 02:00:24Quote from: alancalverd on 08/05/2015 23:58:00... With a population of 5 - 10 million we could devote enough land to energy production to maintain our current standard of living with renewables, and still have enough area to grow all the food we need.At that point Britain becomes an allotment for an overpopulated neighbouring country with a bigger armed forces.Like, say, Canada, Australia, Kenya, New Zealand, Italy, or any other food-exporting country. Did I suggest reducing the size of the military? I think not. Right now, we have the smallest proportion of the population under arms for over a century, and if 150,000 personnel are sufficient to defend the borders whilst rearranging the rubble in Iaq and Afghanistan, I se no reason to reduce the number.And remember that there won't necessarily be any surplus to export. I'm looking for complete, sustainable selfsufficiency, unlike the present where the entire country is hostage to Saudi Arabia and Russia and the price of food is determined by the least efficient farmer in France.
self efficiency is what I was aiming at with my post, although you explained a lot of Britain is agriculture sufficient I personally do not observe this.
I have many open areas of country side around where I live, these fields are empty of food and cattle where this land should be flourishing.
When you say "Japan" I presume you mean "Japanese politicians, economists and business owners", not the emancipated women who have decided to live their own lives rather than raise children to make statistics for other people.
Quote from: Thebox on 09/05/2015 09:43:05self efficiency is what I was aiming at with my post, although you explained a lot of Britain is agriculture sufficient I personally do not observe this.No I didn't. We cannot grow enough food to feed the present population, and you would need to convert about half the cultivable land to fuel production in order to maintain an acceptable standard of living for the population that could be fed on the remainder. This puts the upper limit of sustainable population at not more than 10,000,000, or about half that if you want to eat farmed animal meat. QuoteI have many open areas of country side around where I live, these fields are empty of food and cattle where this land should be flourishing.Blame the European Union for paying farmers to grow nothing (remember its objective is to sustain market prices and business statistics, not people) . Or consider whether the land is zoned for building, intentionally fallow as part of a crop rotation, subject to purchase negotitations, too prone to flooding, set aside as a nature reserve or parkland, or polluted. Pretty much every bit of the UK that can be farmed for profit, is.