Population control

[Killdash]

Ah, well that's an issue as well, isn't it?

Absolutely, like in terms of the rate of natural increase, wherein you factor out the net migration.

The only countries that are overcrowded enough to warrant population control is China and India. Most of the rest of the world has populations that are leveling off or shrinking.

What? The total fertility rate in China is 1.66, and 2.5 in India (and falling). Not to mention, but China has already undergone significant population control.

I meant it's an issue from a natives point of view. But you make a good point.

[Saiwania]

What? The total fertility rate in China is 1.66, and 2.5 in India. Not to mention, but China has already undergone significant population control.

You have to remember that both China and India are over a billion strong and thus, can afford to lose a chunk from an extra decade of sub replacement growth more so than countries with smaller populations like Japan. If China's government deems that it is time to end the one child policy, I assume they'll do so. Even if both nation's populations halved, they'd have plenty of people to spare.

[Romalae]

The only countries that are overcrowded enough to warrant population control is China and India. Most of the rest of the world has populations that are leveling off or shrinking.

I must respectfully disagree. Kenya has a birthrate of 7.8 children per woman.

That kind of figure is not extraordinary in many African countries.

Kenya's total fertility rate is less than 4.5 births per woman. Kenya, above some other Sub-Saharan African countries, has been having some success with its TFR. You probably should have used a different example, like Niger or Mali or Somalia.

What? The total fertility rate in China is 1.66, and 2.5 in India. Not to mention, but China has already undergone significant population control.

You have to remember that both China and India are both over a billion strong and thus, can afford to lose a chunk from an extra decade of sub replacement growth. If China's government deems that it is time to end the one child policy, I assume they'll do so. Even if both nation's populations halved, they'd have plenty of people to spare.

China and India's populations will continue to increase because of demographic momentum (especially India, which will soon overtake China in terms of total population).

And China has already relaxed its one-child policy considerably.

[Saiwania]

China and India's populations will continue to increase because of demographic momentum.
And China has already relaxed its one-child policy considerably.

That is all the more reason why measures should be taken by both nations to limit their populations however they can, if they don't have the room or resources for it. It is very lopsided and imbalanced that both China and India comprise 37% of all humans alive.

[Romalae]

China and India's populations will continue to increase because of demographic momentum.
And China has already relaxed its one-child policy considerably.

That is all the more reason why measures should be taken by both nations to limit their populations however they can, if they don't have the room or resources for it. It is very lopsided and imbalanced that both China and India comprise 37% of all humans alive.

I think it would make more sense to take measures to limit population increase in Sub-Saharan African nations, where the rate of population growth is still unsustainably high. China and India have already done this in various ways; their populations will foreseeably level off to some degree. The population momentum India is facing is inevitable, unless you wish to engage in a very, very large genocide or nuclear war.

Another thing to remember is that as global sea levels rise with climate change, the giant population of low-lying Bangladesh is going to need to evacuate further inland, which means going into India. So that's what India should be more concerned about.

[Nazi Flower Power]

The problem with your idea of giving every culture an equal share of the world is that some cultures consist of a few hundred people, and their way of life is not suited to a larger population. Meanwhile other cultures have huge populations and are much more adapted to urbanization. Hunter-gatherer tribes tend not to grow like agrarian or industrialized cultures because they are limited by inefficient land use, inadequate infrastructure, and inadequate medical care (which is related to the lack of infrastructure). It's fine for them to continue living that way if they can find a corner of the world to do it in without bothering anyone, but it's ridiculous to pretend that a few hundred tribesmen have the same importance as upwards of a billion Chinese.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Gun Manufacturers: UN big five consensus or alike

Scomagia, Val Halla, Skeckoa: As for today data, there is no assurance that it would be like that forever. I would be glad if you take this approach to problematic, thinking about it "just in case"

Majarlica: Was that question for me or someone other?

Aelex: I did not read Capital but I think that famine problems in Africa shows otherwise.

Famines in Africa could be prevented with current tech if Africa was caught up with the rest of the world and the distribution of food was not hindered by corruption and socio-economic inequality.

[The Conez Imperium]

Gun Manufacturers: UN big five consensus or alike

Scomagia, Val Halla, Skeckoa: As for today data, there is no assurance that it would be like that forever. I would be glad if you take this approach to problematic, thinking about it "just in case"

Majarlica: Was that question for me or someone other?

Aelex: I did not read Capital but I think that famine problems in Africa shows otherwise.

Famines in Africa could be prevented with current tech if Africa was caught up with the rest of the world and the distribution of food was not hindered by corruption and socio-economic inequality.

The world produces enough food to feed everyone adequately. The problem is in the unequal distribution.

[Nazi Flower Power]

What? The total fertility rate in China is 1.66, and 2.5 in India. Not to mention, but China has already undergone significant population control.

You have to remember that both China and India are over a billion strong and thus, can afford to lose a chunk from an extra decade of sub replacement growth more so than countries with smaller populations like Japan. If China's government deems that it is time to end the one child policy, I assume they'll do so. Even if both nation's populations halved, they'd have plenty of people to spare.

China and India both have plenty of land, so they can support large populations. Japan is just as overcrowded, even though it has fewer people, because they have much less land. Japan does have the advantage of better sanitation, though.

[Scomagia]

Famines in Africa could be prevented with current tech if Africa was caught up with the rest of the world and the distribution of food was not hindered by corruption and socio-economic inequality.

The world produces enough food to feed everyone adequately. The problem is in the unequal distribution.

Could I see a source for that? I'm not trying to be a contrarian, I'm just legitimately interested.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Famines in Africa could be prevented with current tech if Africa was caught up with the rest of the world and the distribution of food was not hindered by corruption and socio-economic inequality.

The world produces enough food to feed everyone adequately. The problem is in the unequal distribution.

Exactly.

[Gun Manufacturers]

URSS: Please be more eloquent. Do you really chose famine just because it is "wrong"?

Gun: As for the control, some kind of parental license would be necessary, in case someone breaks it then I can't imagine other solution than forced abortion. The reason to enforce it on others is contained in the basics of population control idea because the outcome of the situation when you do it and your neighbour not would usually be rather unpleasant. As for that they "might" decide that way, well, the point of this thread is to discuss how to divide he population limit between countries in case when population control became necessary, You won't enforce it without reason to do so.

Romalae: This thread is for discussion about the division of the population limit in case of its necessity.

I don't see that working. The US has to follow the Constitution, so it wouldn't agree to your suggestion of population control in the first place. To force women without a license to have an abortion would violate body sovereignty, something that the US couldn't legally enforce.

[Ripoll]

We don't need it, get this bureaucratic nonsense out of here, if we need to support more humans we'll expand.

[Jerusalemian]

Well, as people earn more money most of them get too busy procreate, and with people living longer population growth stagnates then slowly declines over the years.

[Diopolis]

First off, population control is just impractical in most of the world. Forced abortions in North America? Do you want secession and church collections for terrorists(because make no mistake, in a country where half the states would ban abortion entirely if they could and two or three would ban contraception, that would happen. I can't say I would oppose it.)

Secondly, population control has some unpleasant long term consequences. When there are more people retired than there are working and sex-selected abortion(which again, would happen. Most of the world is not particularly egalitarian and changing that is hard enough already without a christian version of IS popping up because some idiots tried to pass forced abortion legislation.) means that there are twice as many men as women and as a result it's virtually impossible to right the demographic curve quickly enough to make a difference, you can kiss your economy good-bye. That means people starving in the streets, and lots and lots of crime.

Finally, population control is entirely unnecessary. In fact, those problems are already going to pop up, even without it. Agricultural techniques are getting better all the time, and really, a lot of things people blame on population size actually come from poor resource distribution.

[Diopolis]

The world produces enough food to feed everyone adequately. The problem is in the unequal distribution.

Could I see a source for that? I'm not trying to be a contrarian, I'm just legitimately interested.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/200 ... -the-world

[The Conez Imperium]

The world produces enough food to feed everyone adequately. The problem is in the unequal distribution.

Could I see a source for that? I'm not trying to be a contrarian, I'm just legitimately interested.

While technically what I say is true but given my heavy handed assumption once can call it false also.

Human diet is a variety of different foods, we require a balanced diet of carbohydrates, protein, vegetables, fruit and various other "stuff". The world produces enough carbohydrates (in the form of wheat, rice and other common grains) to feed everyone, unfortunately we do not produce enough protein (meat) to feed everyone at a theoretical acceptable standard.

How many kilocalories do 1 billion persons need per year? Ten to the 15th power kilocalories: one million kcal per person per year times one billion persons. Therefore, 7 billion persons need 7 x 1015 kcal/year.

According to my analysis, the top 50 world staple crops produce just over 1016 kcal, which is enough total kcal for 10 billion persons. Does this mean that the world produces enough food for 7 billion persons? Unfortunately, it does not. Human persons need more than the right number of calories per day; they need to have those calories appropriately apportioned among protein, fat, and carbohydrates.

https://hungermath.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/does-the-world-produce-enough-food-for-7-billion-persons/

[Uawc]

As far as I'm concerned, there are far too many useless and otherwise undesirable people, and indeed, the world can only support so many. Population control, in my opinion, is absolutely necessary, and the best way to implement it is procreation licences. Nobody gets hurt, and a couple generations down the road, there's less people. It's win win.

Or the world can just do what China is doing. Either way, we need to start forbidding certain people from procreating and possibly sterilizing criminals.

[Romalae]

As far as I'm concerned, there are far too many useless and otherwise undesirable people, and indeed, the world can only support so many. Population control, in my opinion, is absolutely necessary, and the best way to implement it is procreation licences. Nobody gets hurt, and a couple generations down the road, there's less people. It's win win.

Or the world can just do what China is doing. Either way, we need to start forbidding certain people from procreating and possibly sterilizing criminals.

Based on this post, you may want to recalculate your political compass in your signature.

[Scomagia]

As far as I'm concerned, there are far too many useless and otherwise undesirable people, and indeed, the world can only support so many. Population control, in my opinion, is absolutely necessary, and the best way to implement it is procreation licences. Nobody gets hurt, and a couple generations down the road, there's less people. It's win win.

Or the world can just do what China is doing. Either way, we need to start forbidding certain people from procreating and possibly sterilizing criminals.

And I'm sure you wouldn't classify yourself as one of those useless or undesirable people, right?

Absolutely disgusting.

[Nazi Flower Power]

As far as I'm concerned, there are far too many useless and otherwise undesirable people, and indeed, the world can only support so many. Population control, in my opinion, is absolutely necessary, and the best way to implement it is procreation licences. Nobody gets hurt, and a couple generations down the road, there's less people. It's win win.

Or the world can just do what China is doing. Either way, we need to start forbidding certain people from procreating and possibly sterilizing criminals.

How do you determine who is useless and/or undesirable enough that they need to be sterilized? I don't trust the government with that, and some people who seem useless in one phase of life might get their shit together and be productive at other times. It can be hard to tell sometimes if a person is really useless or they are just going through a rough patch in their life.

[The Conez Imperium]

As far as I'm concerned, there are far too many useless and otherwise undesirable people, and indeed, the world can only support so many. Population control, in my opinion, is absolutely necessary, and the best way to implement it is procreation licences. Nobody gets hurt, and a couple generations down the road, there's less people. It's win win.

Or the world can just do what China is doing. Either way, we need to start forbidding certain people from procreating and possibly sterilizing criminals.

The master race eradicate all the Sub-Humans if we are to survive, we must ensure our blood is racially pure. Let's start with Steven Hawking for the master race needs no disabled people. Long live full range of motion !

Yes this is an hyperbole to the extreme.

[Uawc]

As far as I'm concerned, there are far too many useless and otherwise undesirable people, and indeed, the world can only support so many. Population control, in my opinion, is absolutely necessary, and the best way to implement it is procreation licences. Nobody gets hurt, and a couple generations down the road, there's less people. It's win win.

Or the world can just do what China is doing. Either way, we need to start forbidding certain people from procreating and possibly sterilizing criminals.

Based on this post, you may want to recalculate your political compass in your signature.

This is the one and only issue I have an authoritarian stance on.

As far as I'm concerned, there are far too many useless and otherwise undesirable people, and indeed, the world can only support so many. Population control, in my opinion, is absolutely necessary, and the best way to implement it is procreation licences. Nobody gets hurt, and a couple generations down the road, there's less people. It's win win.

Or the world can just do what China is doing. Either way, we need to start forbidding certain people from procreating and possibly sterilizing criminals.

And I'm sure you wouldn't classify yourself as one of those useless or undesirable people, right?

Absolutely disgusting.

No, I wouldn't. I don't make babies to collect more welfare. I don't commit crimes. I don't piss on the toilet seat. I work, I pay my taxes, and I recognize that my opinion is not likely to be shared by many.

[Luziyca]

There's no need to implement any sort of population control. As wealth increases, population declines anyway. The growth of the global economy will curb population growth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographi ... ic_paradox

This.

If populations rise and stuff like food prices and living expenses rise, people will act in accordance.
As birth control becomes cheaper as well as people getting richer, birth rates drop.
As baby boomers die (a somewhat world wide phenomenon), population will drop.
If immigration is further allowed, people could move to underpopulated areas easier.
As tech increases, it will become less taxing to the environment to live and eat (ex. new synthethic foods, more durable crops, better irrigation and farm production)

Yeah, this.

[Killdash]

As we've shown, Africa and some Latin America countries are the ones we need to target as they are the ones with unsustainable birthrates. However, in many African countries (eg: Zimbabwe) we see a total lack of governance in this area, and even active resistance to building educational facilities and/or modernising.