If you agree that the world is over populated.
When (in history) would you (If you'd had the power and you'd been living then) brought in the legislation to prevent the worlds population exceeding 500 million?
Which scientific way would you have proposed to implemented this. 
I don't think there's a single point in time that would have been appropriate. Some countries were overpopulated 100 years ago. Some are not overpopulated yet.
A 'scientific' method of control was attempted once. Whole sections of the population, of much of Europe, were identified and culled. It is now regarded as one of the darkest periods of human history.
The way forward, I think, is social engineering - giving incentives and disincentives. In Britain we have a child allowance system that rewards breeding. This needs to be changed so that, perhaps, only the first child is granted the allowance - the second should ge granted no allowance and subsequent children should attract progressively higher penalties (paid by the parents, of course). Perhaps this could be in the form of taxes, or only allowing 'free' schooling for the first 2 children so that wayward parents are forced to either home educate or pay for private schooling for the third and subsequent. No democratic political party would ever be able to introduce such a scheme and have any hope of winning the next election, though.
Other countries would have to do whatever works for them. Clearly, though, there'll need to be a world-wide agreement on population reduction.
Those who choose not to breed should be rewarded for their contribution to natural population reduction.
We'd have to prepare for an ageing population.
In many of the more industrialized nations the population has slowed down it's growth, or even started shrinking. If this trend is caused by development, and not some cultural ideas, then we have but to wait for the 3rd world to become more developed, then population growth should stop being such a problem.
If that doesn't happen -- or doesn't happen soon enough -- though, we might have to look at other solutions:
*Cities (and even farms) built on man-made islands
*Space colonization
*Underground living
David Pimentel, a very well respected researcher at Cornell, argues that the population should be capped at 2 billion. He has shown that the world lacks the resources to support a larger population at a high standard of living. In order to have an acceptable standard of living for all, the world should not have a human population of more than about 2 billion. Our current population requires that some or all individuals live at a certain level of 'misery.'
Government approved/applied Pathogens among the ghettos.
David Pimentel, from your summation of his views, sounds like a quack. At all levels of population theres been a 'misery' class. Granted, it's grown with a growing population, but a third world country today is well-off one if you go back a bit.
Well in my opinion to be fair humanity should be annihilated thus solving all problems...
| Ancient wrote: |
Government approved/applied Pathogens among the ghettos.
David Pimentel, from your summation of his views, sounds like a quack. At all levels of population theres been a 'misery' class. Granted, it's grown with a growing population, but a third world country today is well-off one if you go back a bit. |
LOL! David Pimentel is far from a quack! His name is very well known and well respected 
Besides, many third-world countries are less 'well off' today than historically. Overpopulation is a major, major problem. | EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| Well in my opinion to be fair humanity should be annihilated thus solving all problems... |
Or we could just eliminate everything, and then there really wouldn't be any problems 
| Gagnar The Unruly wrote: |
| David Pimentel, a very well respected researcher at Cornell, argues that the population should be capped at 2 billion. He has shown that the world lacks the resources to support a larger population at a high standard of living. In order to have an acceptable standard of living for all, the world should not have a human population of more than about 2 billion. Our current population requires that some or all individuals live at a certain level of 'misery.' |
And heres me thinking that people are living longer (the population grows) due to better standards of living in general, what does he consider an acceptable standard of living ?
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
Well in my opinion to be fair humanity should be annihilated thus solving all problems... |
Make that inhumanity and I would agreewell inhumanity is a catch22 term because inhumanity generally means "evil" yet "evil" is completely natural for the human brain so in order to have inhumanity you must be a human and the art of being human=humanity so humanity=inhumanity that is why humans must be either genetically or cybernetically altered or just wiped out completely
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| well inhumanity is a catch22 term because inhumanity generally means "evil" yet "evil" is completely natural for the human brain so in order to have inhumanity you must be a human and the art of being human=humanity so humanity=inhumanity that is why humans must be either genetically or cybernetically altered or just wiped out completely |
What ........... humanity = inhumanity .....pleeeeease
Human.........what we are.........humanity........our best traits......inhumanity.....our worst traits
We can't escape being human ,but we can escape the others.....theres no catch22 , People do have a choice, and thats the point, humans have and do try to rise above there nature ,the majority of humans are not "evil" even though (as you say) its completely natural so they must have risen above there nature...no ? | EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| Well in my opinion to be fair humanity should be annihilated thus solving all problems... |
I'd settle for the sterilization of humanity.
Get rid of us all within one generation without any messy executions or brutal violence; very neat.You cannot "rise above your nature" since the instinct to "rise above your nature" is your nature.
Sterilization: Not a bad idea...
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
Sterilization: Not a bad idea... |
Might not be too hard either:
1: Use genetic engineering to make a virus with these traits:
*As contagious as the common cold
*Does not show symptoms until 2 years or so after being caught
*Incurable by the human immune system (of course!)
*Causes few symptoms other than sterility
2: Release it in one (or several) major international airports. By the time anybody detects it, it will have spread all over the world. By the time anybody invents a vaccine to it, nearly everyone will have it.Man ocalhoun your ideas keep getting better and better! 
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
You cannot "rise above your nature" since the instinct to "rise above your nature" is your nature.
|
You may feel a slave to your instincts, but I myself learn ,reason and choose
Its no coincidence that many cultures of the past ( and probably most modern ones ) have a "rights of passage" somewhere in there culture ,trials of endurance ,seclusion, pain, starvation , fear (or maybe playing chicken on the highway) where one has to place reason over instinct to succeed, you would have to show that your mind is capable of overcoming your instinct to be accepted in society , to ignore your primal instincts in my mind is rising above them.Right, our culture gives us a 'way out' of our instincts, so to speak. Our culture is also what gives us the capability to commit evil. Without the ability to choose and alter our behavior, we wouldn't be responsible for ourselves, and wouldn't be able to be good or evil.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: | You cannot "rise above your nature" since the instinct to "rise above your nature" is your nature.
|
You may feel a slave to your instincts, but I myself learn ,reason and choose
Its no coincidence that many cultures of the past ( and probably most modern ones ) have a "rights of passage" somewhere in there culture ,trials of endurance ,seclusion, pain, starvation , fear (or maybe playing chicken on the highway) where one has to place reason over instinct to succeed, you would have to show that your mind is capable of overcoming your instinct to be accepted in society , to ignore your primal instincts in my mind is rising above them. |
What is instinct? Instinct is only the "most predictable" outcome of an organism based on its environmental surroundings, in other words, "evolutionary programming." You are making the mistake of calling all instincts "primal instincts"...and mind=brain there is no "magical soul" inside. So in actuality your "mind rising above primal instincts" is just "instinct rising above other instincts"...
And nothing about are culture gives us a way "out of our instincts" as a matter of fact American culture bogs us down and poisons us with lower more "primal instincts" and inhibits "higher thought and instincts."Instincts are fixed responses to certain stimuli or sets of stimuli. Human interactions are much more complex, are unpredictable, and rely on processes that we understand are intellectual. We can, and do, override our instincts all the time. Also, humans are noteworthy for our extreme phenotypic plasticity. Many of our responses are influenced by our past experiences, meaning that they aren't exactly instinctual. There is some debate, apparently, as to whether or not humans are subject to instinctual drives at all. Since we can intellectualize (almost) every process that occurs to us, and (almost) every reaction we make, we may be (almost) free from instinct.
If every behavior was instinctual, then no act we took could be considered as rational. It would therefore be difficult to argue that humans are capable of committing evil acts.
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
And nothing about are culture gives us a way "out of our instincts" as a matter of fact American culture bogs us down and poisons us with lower more "primal instincts" and inhibits "higher thought and instincts." |
As "higher thought" involves reason, and you say its inhibated,your also saying it exists , so higher thought exists and therefore is not instinct ,either there is higher thought (reason,to be able to employ ones mind rationally) or there is'nt , please make up your mind or in your case your instinct 
| chasbeen wrote: |
If you agree that the world is over populated.
When (in history) would you (If you'd had the power and you'd been living then) brought in the legislation to prevent the worlds population exceeding 500 million?
Which scientific way would you have proposed to implemented this. |
I don't think 500m is the perfect point. I think there is something we can and should do right now. Countries averaging over 4 children per women do not have a western lifestyle and so do not deserve western medicine. This will result in the people causing overpopulation decreasing in numbers. Once they begin to live a reasonable way (2.1 children is the even point) they can have medicine and food aid again. There is no reason to help the people in Kenya who average 8 kids. It just creates more problems. I am not above threatening castration to stop the spread of aids. | dwinton wrote: |
| chasbeen wrote: | If you agree that the world is over populated.
When (in history) would you (If you'd had the power and you'd been living then) brought in the legislation to prevent the worlds population exceeding 500 million?
Which scientific way would you have proposed to implemented this. |
I don't think 500m is the perfect point. I think there is something we can and should do right now. Countries averaging over 4 children per women do not have a western lifestyle and so do not deserve western medicine. This will result in the people causing overpopulation decreasing in numbers. Once they begin to live a reasonable way (2.1 children is the even point) they can have medicine and food aid again. There is no reason to help the people in Kenya who average 8 kids. It just creates more problems. I am not above threatening castration to stop the spread of aids. |
there are many americans who have 12 kids dumdum | Gagnar The Unruly wrote: |
Instincts are fixed responses to certain stimuli or sets of stimuli. Human interactions are much more complex, are unpredictable, and rely on processes that we understand are intellectual. We can, and do, override our instincts all the time. Also, humans are noteworthy for our extreme phenotypic plasticity. Many of our responses are influenced by our past experiences, meaning that they aren't exactly instinctual. There is some debate, apparently, as to whether or not humans are subject to instinctual drives at all. Since we can intellectualize (almost) every process that occurs to us, and (almost) every reaction we make, we may be (almost) free from instinct.
If every behavior was instinctual, then no act we took could be considered as rational. It would therefore be difficult to argue that humans are capable of committing evil acts. |
But evil is simply a point of view...population control isn't a BAD idea....
I think you should have to get a license to have kids...
You need one for everything else, including Fishing (which sux)
why not for having kids?
They could find a way to temorarily steralize people and
after you get a license they could undo it.
dwinton I think i'd leave town if you were Sheriff 
stop poverty and people will have less kids - fact....
people in poverty stricken countries breed like rabbits (more family members to work on farms and in factories = more income for family), stop that and most people in less economicaly developed countries will have 1 or 2 kids cause they wont need any more.
I know I only picked the poorer countries and its true because they are the most overpopulated right now.
oh and the Chinese go at it like rabbits on steroids.
Peopel in developing countries have lots of children for a variety of reasons:
- They have less easy access to birth control although this is improving
- Lots of babies die young and so you need more so that some survive - however with increases in medicine more are surviving but the mindset still remains
- More hands make light work. you have 10 kids you can do more farming and make more money
Someone mentioned that birth control here in Britain is needed and I disagree - the UK population is steady and apart from the inner cities the standard of living is generally ok. We produce enough food to feed everyone and have more than enough room. But when a young girl does have 5 children the Government try and help her so as to ensure that her kids are not locked into the same fate as she was.
The problem countries are the ones that are already overpopulated and these are not the developed nations - they are the developing ones and as someone said, until they are 'developed' there is little that we can do that will change things. Mass sterilisation would work but I suspect that most peoples morals would kick in.
David.
I think we could try to reduce the population on earth but the real solution lies with export. I think the human future and the only way we can reliably avoid extinction (through human stupidity like nuclear war) effectively is colonize other planets and solar systems. Also, as countries develop, they will naturally slow their population growth as stated in previous posts. Mars could be made to be hospitable to human, plant, and other animal life. I don't think any other planets in our solar system are very hospitable but other solar systems might be.
tennispro
alas if only it was that easy.
Maybe it would be possible to create a small Mars community or 2 (in case one gets wiped out) as long as a self sustaining unit could be established.
As long as the unit is self sustaining and DOES NOT BECOME OVERPOPULATED perhaps the thickies will be able to make it work. You said... "Given that 1 in 4 people that ever lived are alive now...". That is just about surely not true.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=09E07C6F-E7F2-99DF-3AD087F0DA77D94F
A better figure would be 6% not 25%. Just a fact check. I agree with colonizing other worlds, but the number of people who could leave this planet is too small to make an impact on earth's population.
I think the real answer is education. The trend in America is toward smaller families, and that is mostly among the better educated middle and upper classes.
1. Education about family planning
2. Access to birth control
3. Whacking the Catholic church over the head with a clue-by-four so they will change their stance on birth control
4. Giving poorer women more chances for better education and careers so they will have a chance to get out of the cycle of popping out babies to try to snag a man to support them
5. Cutting off welfare to women who have kids just to increase their welfare checks
6. Tax credits for people who choose not to breed.
or, we could go the more brutal method of sterilizing anyone convicted of a felony - they give up the rights to vote and own firearms, why not the right to have children as well?
