Should humans use population control?

[Farnhamia]

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.

Piffle. There's plenty of room. Give everyone on earth one square yard (or a square meter, for those of the metric persuasion) and we could all stand on the Island of Zanzibar. Then we could use the rest of the world to grow food using robots. Simple.

[Blouman Empire]

5. We can colonize the seas.

Yes. You go first.

Well Stromberg tried to, but MI6 and the KGB stopped him.

[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.

Piffle. There's plenty of room. Give everyone on earth one square yard (or a square meter, for those of the metric persuasion) and we could all stand on the Island of Zanzibar. Then we could use the rest of the world to grow food using robots. Simple.

Wonderful.
Factory farming density, for humans.

[Risottia]

5. We can colonize the seas.

Yes. You go first.

Well Stromberg tried to, but MI6 and the KGB stopped him.

They're such bugging busybodies...

[Allanea]

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

I'm betting on new technologies to improve this.

Yes. You go first.

There are already some people who live permanently on the sea surface.

[Risottia]

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

I'm betting on new technologies to improve this.

Could be. How much will it cost? How much energy will those technologies consume?
Also, zymoveal

Yes. You go first.

There are already some people who live permanently on the sea surface.

It's not just about surface. It's about energy consumption per capita, food consumption per capita, and long-term sustainability of the system, even in the event of major climate changes.

[Allied Governments]

Then of course there's the whole problem of Whites becoming a minority in their own country, but of course you don't care because, well, you're arguing about this point in the first place on the Internet.

[Peepelonia]

Then of course there's the whole problem of Whites becoming a minority in their own country, but of course you don't care because, well, you're arguing about this point in the first place on the Internet.

Wot crap really, what country do 'the whites' own then?

[Allied Governments]

Then of course there's the whole problem of Whites becoming a minority in their own country, but of course you don't care because, well, you're arguing about this point in the first place on the Internet.

Wot crap really, what country do 'the whites' own then?

How typical, using the "country lines are just lines on a piece of paper!!!" I'm referring to countries such as Germany, Great Britain, countries where the only source of new population is either via immigration, or immigration based births.

[Idaho Conservatives]

Ever notice how the people who can afford to have kids and have the time to raise them typically only have 1-3, and some people with little money and education who have little intent of raising their kids to be contributing members of society and can't afford their children are the ones who have 6-8 kids?

[Ordo Mallus]

there shouldnt be a limit on how many children a family has, thats insane, its like me telling you you can only have X amount of RAM on your computer before its illegal and i confiscate and then proceed to bash it apart. If we go down this path of population control, where will it end? When we are dragging people out of their houses and shooting them in the streets? sterilizing entire populations? this is a pointless arguement, because if this was to happen, i bet you there will be a 2nd civil war.

[Peepelonia]

Then of course there's the whole problem of Whites becoming a minority in their own country, but of course you don't care because, well, you're arguing about this point in the first place on the Internet.

Wot crap really, what country do 'the whites' own then?

How typical, using the "country lines are just lines on a piece of paper!!!" I'm referring to countries such as Germany, Great Britain, countries where the only source of new population is either via immigration, or immigration based births.

Bwahahahah and how typical that you misguess my intent soooo badly.

No the line I'm taking is this. Nobody owns any country anywhere nor have they ever done, nor will they ever do.

[TerraPublica]

We could promote comprehensive sex education all around the world, especiallly Africa.This would also reduce the spread of AIDS.

[Peepelonia]

We could promote comprehensive sex education all around the world, especiallly Africa.This would also reduce the spread of AIDS.

What? What is this? A good idea postited on NSG? Well I'll go to the foot of our stairs! Umm *cough* as my nan may have said.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Encourage groin-kicking as an official sport. That should help reduce birth rates a bit.

[Jordaxia]

Then you can understand why I point out that using China's One Child Policy as an example of population control doing ok is problematic.

Problematic for misogynistic cultures. I see no problem with these same cultures running into breeding difficulties. It will perhaps prove an effective wake up call.

[Vespertilia]

No the line I'm taking is this. Nobody owns any country anywhere nor have they ever done, nor will they ever do.

A country belongs to its citizens. Then comes the idea of a nationstate, which is national self-governance taken to the logic extension of creating a country (a state-wide "home") for a given particular people. Some of them are strongly linked to their history and a given nation or ethnicity, while the others are based on immigration or otherwise have these links weak. In the first case, high immigration - especially the influx of noticeably different phenotypes and cultures - is a concern for many locals.

Ah, I hope I'm not misinterpreting you.

[TerraPublica]

Encourage groin-kicking as an official sport. That should help reduce birth rates a bit.

[Natapoc]

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.

Hi I don't have time to give you lots of sources but I have seen them and here is one for the US from a quick google search:

http://www.russellsage.org/chartbook/ho ... re4.5/view

You will find that the the number of children people have is inversely correlated to relative income on that graph. It is a well studied.

If you want more and more detailed sources ask again.

By the way if you go to the third world and start asking people who are nearly starving(many of whom keep having kids) about family issues (in a really polite and humble way of course) you will find the reason...

edit: Oh here is an article about Africa for female heads of households http://www.ifad.org/gender/learning/cha ... men/60.htm

It shows that the ones who are the most impoverished tend to have the most number of dependents while the most well off have the least.

[Vetalia]

The world is more than capable of supporting a much larger population than we currently have. The problem is inefficient and corrupt governments failing to properly develop their infrastructure to get food and water where it needs to be...the amount of resources lost due to waste and spoilage is staggering and could easily be prevented with a much smaller amount of effort.

Also, economic development. Wealthier nations have smaller families and slower population growth. Much more effective and beneficial than decimating your demographic base through mindless policies like the one-child rule. I honestly believe China's economy will collapse unless they address their upcoming demographic implosion.