Should humans use population control?

[Callisdrun]

It is true because it is true. Simple as that.

It is up to any idiot who seriously believes that females are inherently physically equal to males to prove their point.

You made the claim, so it's your responsibility to back it up. For starters you could define what attributes are optimal for physical labor. Many of us believe endurance falls under that umbrella, yet you seem to disagree.

So clearly you need to elaborate.

Indeed. Women also feel pain earlier, but can take more of it, which ties into their endurance being greater than that of men.

[ChengISao]

Hmm... As a 6', 250Lb, built like a Green bay Packer, female... I resent some of these statements.

Females too can be bred for strength as well as we have been bred for endurance, i.e., breeding abilities.

[Allanea]

According to a recent U.N. study, the world's population will begin a decline by 2100, as we will have reached our "carrying capacity".

This same people predicted massive starvation in India and the death of up to 200 million people from hunger by the 1980's. This has failed to materialized.

inflation is so high that you practically need a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread, and there is not even room to put cremated dead

Right now, only about 15% of the Earth's ground surface is populated/used by humans. You would need 60 billion people to populate the earth completely, and this even forgetting the sea.

Currently, according to the UN, humanity is producing SIX TIMES MORE FOOD THAN WE NEED to eat. Whatever hunger/starvation there remains, remains due to our inability to distribute it, not due to the number of humans out there.

e are already using tons of water and other resources at an alarming rate, and these will quickly run out.

We're not going to run out of water. We have 1.3 billion cubic kilometers of water we can desalinize, or 216,000,000 tons of water for every man, woman and child on Earth. As demand rises, we will simply build new desalinization plants.

[As a comparison, a person's average water consumption in the West is 43.4 tons of water per year, or 3,255 tons in a 75-year lifespan].

Note the water you ingest doesn't disappear from the ecosystem!

They also say it harms the poorest nations by not allowing them to grow, yet the poorest nations tend to have the highest birth rates, and they are getting worse.

This is simply not true. The poorest nations' birth rates fall off as they get wealthier, but at an early stage of the development cycle you need high population growth.

More importantly, nobody has so far accurately predicted population growth or future consumption patterns. Most of the population growth patterns predicted by social scientists in the 1930's and 1940's are now known to be untrue. Birth rates are affected by cultural patterns and technological developments that are entirely impossible to predict by scientific means.

There's absolutely no proof that we're going to run out of resources. We have more resources now available to us than we had in the 1970's, our air (throughout the West and even in China) is getting cleaner, and everything we do is more efficient.

Consider:

1. The average US SUV gets more miles per gallon today than the average 1970's truck.
2. Adjusted for inflation, oil prices today are approximately on the level experienced in the 1980's.
3. In 1970, 37%[/ b] of the world's population were starving. In 2007, the number dropped to [b]17%.
4. The land area of the Earth is 148,940,000 square kilometers. Simple math demonstrates there are 40 people per square kilometer. If the number of people on Earth increased by a factor of ten, we would have 400 people per square kilometer. This is approximately the current population density of England.
5. We can colonize the seas.

[Blouman Empire]

In both Europe and America however, the poorest and least educated are the ones who have the most children. Children are seen as a type of social security system. You know that if you have 8 kids at least one of them will survive to be a productive adult who will take care of you in your old age.

I would like a source for this claim.

I have never heard of this way of thinking before of course that may be due to myself coming from an upper-middle class background.

[Blouman Empire]

Should humans use population control?

You mean we don't already?

*Hides bodies*

[South Lorenya]

I've said before that we're already past the limit (or are very close to it), so SOMETHING has to be done. In the words of no less than WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE (sort of)...

The first thing we do, let's sterilize all the Duggars.

[Peepelonia]

Either we come up with some kind of planned population control, or we leave it to nature. It is simply impossible for the human race to continue growing at it's current rate. We will run out of room.

I for one would like to see clear evidance that this feared overpopulation is in fact on the cards. I do not belive it is, in fact the rate of population growth is a very tiny percent.

[Bottle]

When women are provided with education, resources, and a choice in the matter, they typically choose to limit the number of children they produce to 2-3. Some women have a few more, some have fewer, and some have none at all, but that's where things balance out. Seems like a great situation to me. After all, educating women and ensuring they have complete control over their own reproductive systems is already a Very Good Thing(tm), so when you add the bonus that it dramatically helps with population control it sounds like something nobody could argue against.

[The Gas-masked]

Should humans use population control?

Yes, just exterminate the chinese and africans and you'll solve both world hunger AND overpopulation.

[Peepelonia]

Should humans use population control?

Yes, just exterminate the chinese and africans and you'll solve both world hunger AND overpopulation.

Umm interesting idea but I think we would be better served by exterminating all of the bigots instead.

[Callisdrun]

When women are provided with education, resources, and a choice in the matter, they typically choose to limit the number of children they produce to 2-3. Some women have a few more, some have fewer, and some have none at all, but that's where things balance out. Seems like a great situation to me. After all, educating women and ensuring they have complete control over their own reproductive systems is already a Very Good Thing(tm), so when you add the bonus that it dramatically helps with population control it sounds like something nobody could argue against.

Indeed. The more educated and empowered women are, the more they will generally have only a few kids.

[Greed and Death]

That China's one child policy has led to some really bad situations with parents killing off female babies in order to have sons, and then those sons being unable to find wives later on.

It's a good idea in theory, but in practice, I think you'd end up needing unacceptable government intrusion to make it work and you'd STILL have problems.

Trust me, I know all about the situation in china. I could have easily mentioned it in my "speech", but this was mostly copied and pasted from an old debate. But, seeing as my family has adopted 2 girls from china, I am fairly knowledgeable about the situation.

which doesn't address nervun's points at all.

[Sunkistodia]

This is rubbish....

[Yazdegerd]

I for one support this idea, not only because even if we were to adapt to larger populations, it will be at the expense of other species, but also because I personally feel people are already too many for someone to live comfortably in a society.

Even if we could develop our resources to accommodate more people, that doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't lower our numbers. That would lead to abundance and a great life for everyone. There's not such a need for workforce anymore, we can increasingly automate production and cull ourselves so that we're few and happy.

[Peepelonia]

I for one support this idea, not only because even if we were to adapt to larger populations, it will be at the expense of other species, but also because I personally feel people are already too many for someone to live comfortably in a society.

Even if we could develop our resources to accommodate more people, that doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't lower our numbers. That would lead to abundance and a great life for everyone. There's not such a need for workforce anymore, we can increasingly automate production and cull ourselves so that we're few and happy.

Heh heh, then please sir, after you!

[Meoton]

Yes. Planned parenting. Improved standards of living. Education. Social security. Sexual equality.
In many places, children are your retirement plan.
In other places, condoms and birth control are the work of the devil.

[Yazdegerd]

I for one support this idea, not only because even if we were to adapt to larger populations, it will be at the expense of other species, but also because I personally feel people are already too many for someone to live comfortably in a society.

Even if we could develop our resources to accommodate more people, that doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't lower our numbers. That would lead to abundance and a great life for everyone. There's not such a need for workforce anymore, we can increasingly automate production and cull ourselves so that we're few and happy.

Heh heh, then please sir, after you!

You won't find me breeding incessantly.

[Peepelonia]

I for one support this idea, not only because even if we were to adapt to larger populations, it will be at the expense of other species, but also because I personally feel people are already too many for someone to live comfortably in a society.

Even if we could develop our resources to accommodate more people, that doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't lower our numbers. That would lead to abundance and a great life for everyone. There's not such a need for workforce anymore, we can increasingly automate production and cull ourselves so that we're few and happy.

Heh heh, then please sir, after you!

You won't find me breeding incessantly.

No no I was taling abgout the culling!

[Yazdegerd]

I for one support this idea, not only because even if we were to adapt to larger populations, it will be at the expense of other species, but also because I personally feel people are already too many for someone to live comfortably in a society.

Even if we could develop our resources to accommodate more people, that doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't lower our numbers. That would lead to abundance and a great life for everyone. There's not such a need for workforce anymore, we can increasingly automate production and cull ourselves so that we're few and happy.

Heh heh, then please sir, after you!

You won't find me breeding incessantly.

No no I was taling abgout the culling!

Ah well, that was a joke. I said "cull ourselves" as in refrain from reproducing that much. But I seriously think we would be happier with fewer people living in a smaller society, with lots of wild land to discover and more food for everyone.

[Meoton]

I for one support this idea, not only because even if we were to adapt to larger populations, it will be at the expense of other species, but also because I personally feel people are already too many for someone to live comfortably in a society.

Even if we could develop our resources to accommodate more people, that doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't lower our numbers. That would lead to abundance and a great life for everyone. There's not such a need for workforce anymore, we can increasingly automate production and cull ourselves so that we're few and happy.

Heh heh, then please sir, after you!

You won't find me breeding incessantly.

Me neither, but I'm more than happy to go through the motions. Thank you, Trojan Man!

[Peepelonia]

Ah well, that was a joke. I said "cull ourselves" as in refrain from reproducing that much. But I seriously think we would be happier with fewer people living in a smaller society, with lots of wild land to discover and more food for everyone.

Okay okay then joking over serious now.

Seriously I think perhaps that may be your ideal, others may not share it. Me I differ depending what mood i'm in. Somethimes I think we would be happier all living in seperate caves and keeping well away from each other. Othertimes I think we would be happier living in one giant house all together.

The point is though, the world is not over crowded, and does not look likely to be for looooong years yet.

[West Estainia]

With due respect, The greatest form of population control, which is the most brutal, is war. It might be cruel, but it'll eventually become nessecary to literally genocide millions of people just to have enough room for the rest of the human population. Granted I don't advise this ideology, but it might just be needed in the future, that isn't so far away I might add.

[Peepelonia]

With due respect, The greatest form of population control, which is the most brutal, is war. It might be cruel, but it'll eventually become nessecary to literally genocide millions of people just to have enough room for the rest of the human population. Granted I don't advise this ideology, but it might just be needed in the future, that isn't so far away I might add.

Well again that is if this overcrowding malrky has any truth to it.

[Corntownian]

With due respect, The greatest form of population control, which is the most brutal, is war. It might be cruel, but it'll eventually become nessecary to literally genocide millions of people just to have enough room for the rest of the human population. Granted I don't advise this ideology, but it might just be needed in the future, that isn't so far away I might add.

Sacking the binmen would probably be easier and cheaper than war

[Risottia]

4. The land area of the Earth is 148,940,000 square kilometers. Simple math demonstrates there are 40 people per square kilometer. If the number of people on Earth increased by a factor of ten, we would have 400 people per square kilometer. This is approximately the current population density of England.

Though England isn't self-sufficient as food production goes. Not a smart idea, the whole world not self-sufficient about food.

(btw, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... on_density)

5. We can colonize the seas.

Yes. You go first.