Population Control

atrasicarius said:

Well, there's sort of two levels. First, there's the normal public jobs which pay a good wage, have good hours, and are easy to get. Second, if you somehow screw that up, there's the crappy job where you get quarters and food provided for you, and you basically spend most of your time working. It could probably pay a little bit to help people get straightened out, but the main purpose is to give people an incentive to not screw up at the first level. It would also serve as a prison, for when that's needed.

Click to expand...

I am not sure I agree with the extremes of your argument because some people who are not dangerous to others either have mild MR or have mental disorders that disallow them to work normal jobs. I assume you would consider these people disabled? That would make it so that the current definition of "disabled" would be changed. I have talked to people who are clearly disabled and they were not able to find a job that they are able to do. However, contrary to how easy everyone thinks it is to get disability, this person did not.

Also .. what agency would determine who is disabled and who is not? Do you feel the government is doing a good job?

MusicAdventurer said:

I am not sure I agree with the extremes of your argument because some people who are not dangerous to others either have mild MR or have mental disorders that disallow them to work normal jobs. I assume you would consider these people disabled? That would make it so that the current definition of "disabled" would be changed. I have talked to people who are clearly disabled and they were not able to find a job that they are able to do. However, contrary to how easy everyone thinks it is to get disability, this person did not.

Also .. what agency would determine who is disabled and who is not? Do you feel the government is doing a good job?

Click to expand...

It would probably tie in with the universal health care system. Much easier to do that sort of thing when all the medical records are in the same place and easily accessible.

Our population as Americans is not my concern. What is my concern is that people like President Bush, and Obama play games with our borders and allow illegals enter for NO good reason.

We are being overrun by people we don't need taking up jobs and services that need to go to Americans.

Way too many of those who are coming here want to change America into what they ran away from and it's BS, that needs to stop.

Unless there are some serious changes in the attitudes of those in charge Our Nation will become Muslim and there will be nothing keeping them from killing you grandchildren, and their grandchildren.

If you are one of the damn fools who say we need to allow Muslims to do as they please you are so very mixed up that I hope will get your wish, and that you will not happy when they are beheading you.

Councilman said:

Unless there are some serious changes in the attitudes of those in charge Our Nation will become Muslim and there will be nothing keeping them from killing you grandchildren, and their grandchildren.

Click to expand...

Obvious troll is obvious.

Councilman said:

Unless there are some serious changes in the attitudes of those in charge Our Nation will become Muslim and there will be nothing keeping them from killing you grandchildren, and their grandchildren. If you are one of the damn fools who say we need to allow Muslims to do as they please you are so very mixed up that I hope will get your wish, and that you will not happy when they are beheading you.

Click to expand...

my god is there no end to your complete nonsense. and spamming the forum with this stupid same old youtube clip again...how many times is that now you have posted it in a thread? why are you allowed to continue to do it?

as for the OP...

population control. well, i would definitely say yes for people like Councilman. they should not be allowed to breed. ever.

never. ever. ever.

MusicAdventurer said:

Should the U.S. start controlling our population?

Is there a need for population control? If not, what evidence do you have that there is not? Will there be a need in the near future?

If so to what degree? I.E. How many children should be allowed? Should control be by economic status or equal to all families?

I want to get a sense of where people are on this topic

Click to expand...

The Malthusian Catastrophe has been debunked ages ago.
Why do we continue to even discuss this?

just because it's been debunked doesn't mean we aren't often ruled by people convinced of it's truth

Population growth is part of the obsessive growth model of our current economic paradigm. People are incentivized to have more children for economic reasons.

Once economic growth slows - which it has and will continue to do - birth rates will decline. And it will be a good thing. Just because we can support more people doesn't mean we should. The calculated carrying capacity of this entire planet is 23 billion humans, but I would not want to live on such a planet.

Humans can live in much better equilibrium with nature if we maintain our numbers at reasonable levels. Under the current economic model, I question whether 7 billion humans is manageable or not, given what is rapidly happening to the environment. Humans are at an immature stage still, since most people cannot control their reproductive impulses. Maybe some day we will have a better grip on the responsibility of creating new life, and what it means to this whole world, not just the ones having the kids.

The ol' Malthusian trap rings its head once again. Eventually, human population might have to accept the harsh reality that the resources "bestowed" upon us might not be enough for everyone. This is most certainly true and the famous Simon-Ehrlich bet might eventually be reversed.
Simon

I have been advocating Amory Lovins for years since he seems to be the only one who understands how to get the most use out of our resources.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-563035675515282695#docid=-6669123891673213585

I don't see how it's a trap to observe that humans cannot multiply forever. :shrug:

If we switched to a resource based economy we would be much better off.

Temporal said:

I don't see how it's a trap to observe that humans cannot multiply forever. :shrug:

If we switched to a resource based economy we would be much better off.

Click to expand...

Over population is not happening.
Population growth slows as economies modernize.

It's not a threat to human civilization at all.

No, seriously.


(Noobs: http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/)

MusicAdventurer said:

Will there be a need in the near future?

Click to expand...

Hopefully, no. Not from humans at least.
We'll find out in about 10 days.

I put yes....stop illegal immigration...

No, population control is wrong. We don't need to control the population nor should anyone attempt to.

Overpopulation is not a problem in the U.S. Other countries are a different story.

Why should I care? I will be dead before Spanish is the national language of the United States.

MusicAdventurer said:

Should the U.S. start controlling our population?

Click to expand...

No.I do not like the idea of allowing the government to dictate how many children someone can and can't have.

digsbe said:

No, population control is wrong. We don't need to control the population nor should anyone attempt to.

Click to expand...

really. I thought in this nation the population was supposed to control the government, not the other way 'round?

MusicAdventurer said:

Should the U.S. start controlling our population?

Is there a need for population control? If not, what evidence do you have that there is not? Will there be a need in the near future?

If so to what degree? I.E. How many children should be allowed? Should control be by economic status or equal to all families?

I want to get a sense of where people are on this topic

Click to expand...

Yeah sure - I suppose population control. Ergo I fervently support safe-sex and excessive use of birth control and oppose and measure the government and pharmacies make to limit these essentials.

MusicAdventurer said:

I believe in the right to property at birth (without property tax if that person has no income) .. therefore, you would have to prove to me that there is enough land for every person in the U.S. to live on if they so chose.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree with that plan, but there is definitely plenty of room for everyone in this country. In fact, you could fit the population of the entire world (7 billion) into the state of Texas (268,581 sq. mi.), and it would actually be slightly less densely populated than New York City is (27,532 people per sq. mi.).

Are you saying that overall, our world population is over 2 per family?

Click to expand...

It's true that the world population is still growing, but it is leveling off. The population growth rate peaked in 1968 and has been slowing ever since. The UN predicts that the world population will plateau by mid-century, when the population is 9-12 billion people. In some parts of the world, the fertility rate is still alarmingly high (Sub-Saharan Africa), in other places it has more or less stabilized (Latin America and the US), and in some areas the population is in a terminal decline (Europe and East Asia). But globally, the fertility rate continues to fall even as population continues to rise.

I agree that education is associated with an decrease in population (which is likely in some portion due to learning about birth control). However, as sited before, places that have education are likely to experience less hardship than those without and thus the simple fact that life is not as hard in areas with education could be a contributing factor to reduced birth rates. It makes biological sense and there are many articles and findings that support this idea. The idea is that instinctively, parents hedge their bets when times get tough by having more children in hopes (unconsciously) that they will have at least one child that bears a child that gives them grandchildren and so on. This is why improving infant immortality rates works as well.

Click to expand...

Yes, improving infant health should work very well in reducing birth rates in developing countries; I think it wouldn't work very well in the US (even if we wanted it to) because infant health is already fairly good here.

I am for improving women's rights; we've made large strides in this, right now, the average single female in young adulthood makes more than the average young single male and as I understand it, most differences between male and female income are due to the most wealthy individuals being male. Therefore, many women make handsome incomes, many more than is suggested in some misleading statistical representations. I.E. The few extremely high income makers at the top (the top 5%) who are male, throw the statistics off because they make such a disproportionately higher wage. Another factor is that woman take pregnancy leaves which can throw off their career path (there are more factors of course bu I'm getting off topic). So things aren't perfect, but much much better; we have done a good job in this regard.

Click to expand...

In the US this is true, but I was referring more to developing countries where overpopulation is actually a problem. In many parts of India and Sub-Saharan Africa, women have very few rights and depend on their husband for their livelihood. This set of conditions invariably leads to higher fertility rates.

Still, if immigrants are allowed to take jobs that do not pay minimum wage, I do not see how an influx of immigrants is going to help us - it seems it may only increase our population and as a good portion of our big cities are overpopulated, I do not see how this would help .. ??

Click to expand...

Which US cities are overpopulated? The whole phenomenon of "urban sprawl" is somewhat unique to the US and Canada. American cities tend to be less densely populated than their European counterparts...and much less so than their Asian counterparts.

Kandahar said:

I'm not sure I agree with that plan, but there is definitely plenty of room for everyone in this country. In fact, you could fit the population of the entire world (7 billion) into the state of Texas (268,581 sq. mi.), and it would actually be slightly less densely populated than New York City is (27,532 people per sq. mi.).

Click to expand...

Good, so we have enough for everyone at birth then

Kandahar said:

It's true that the world population is still growing, but it is leveling off. The population growth rate peaked in 1968 and has been slowing ever since. The UN predicts that the world population will plateau by mid-century, when the population is 9-12 billion people. In some parts of the world, the fertility rate is still alarmingly high (Sub-Saharan Africa), in other places it has more or less stabilized (Latin America and the US), and in some areas the population is in a terminal decline (Europe and East Asia). But globally, the fertility rate continues to fall even as population continues to rise.

Click to expand...

This makes sense, unless of course we run into huge recessions, war or other hardships - during and after such harsh events, birth rates typically go up

Kandahar said:

Yes, improving infant health should work very well in reducing birth rates in developing countries; I think it wouldn't work very well in the US (even if we wanted it to) because infant health is already fairly good here.

Click to expand...

I agree

Kandahar said:

In the US this is true, but I was referring more to developing countries where overpopulation is actually a problem. In many parts of India and Sub-Saharan Africa, women have very few rights and depend on their husband for their livelihood. This set of conditions invariably leads to higher fertility rates.

Click to expand...

I wonder why that is .. have you heard any theories?

Kandahar said:

Which US cities are overpopulated? The whole phenomenon of "urban sprawl" is somewhat unique to the US and Canada. American cities tend to be less densely populated than their European counterparts...and much less so than their Asian counterparts.

Click to expand...

Of course we are better than others .. but I don't think that should stop us from making things better - this overpopulation concern is more related to poor people in big inner cities who could have used their share of land at birth.

MusicAdventurer said:

I wonder why that is .. have you heard any theories?

Click to expand...

Increases the odds of at least one child making it from birth to adulthood.
In richer nations, having lots of kids die just doesn't happen, so you can concentrate your resources on 1-3 children, instead of 4+.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Increases the odds of at least one child making it from birth to adulthood.
In richer nations, having lots of kids die just doesn't happen, so you can concentrate your resources on 1-3 children, instead of 4+.

Click to expand...

I was wondering how the following quote was related to birth rates:

Kandahar said:

In many parts of India and Sub-Saharan Africa, women have very few rights and depend on their husband for their livelihood. This set of conditions invariably leads to higher fertility rates.

Click to expand...

I.E. I am curious as to how women having more rights leads to a lower birth rate? Is this because the women would be more educated and thus start working a job leading to overall increase of income for the family to the point of not needing to have many children?

MusicAdventurer said:

I was wondering how the following quote was related to birth rates:



I.E. I am curious as to how women having more rights leads to a lower birth rate? Is this because the women would be more educated and thus start working a job leading to overall increase of income for the family to the point of not needing to have many children?

Click to expand...

Well - that but also in such Patriarchal societies there's less reason for a man to be faithful: births out of wedlock are far more common and women have less strength (legally) to counter it.

They also have higher rates of STD's like aids and the clap - etc.