Should humans use population control?

[Katganistan]

Here's America at night:

That basically shows where large developed areas are. Most of the land without lights is made up of either protected land or farmland. There is unprotected, open land, but it will run out. If we want enough land to be able to sustain our population with food, and preserve anything natural, while at the same time living in 3,000 square foot houses with an acre of land, then we need to curb the growth of our population.

Actually, that's America, Canada, Mexico, Central America, a bit of South America, and the Caribbean, but who's counting?

Yes, and all of that is America, isn't it?
As you said, America (north america), mexico (north/central america), canada (north america), south america, caribbian (sea in the americas).

A little imprecise, yes? The Americas would have been more easily understood if that was your intent. Given that you appeared to be answering Erich Dahmer and his post about the population of the world being able to be concentrated in Alaska (part of the nation, America), in context it's not unreasonable to think you were speaking of that nation.

[United Gordonopia]

Here's America at night:

-snip-

That basically shows where large developed areas are. Most of the land without lights is made up of either protected land or farmland. There is unprotected, open land, but it will run out. If we want enough land to be able to sustain our population with food, and preserve anything natural, while at the same time living in 3,000 square foot houses with an acre of land, then we need to curb the growth of our population.

Actually, that's America, Canada, Mexico, Central America, a bit of South America, and the Caribbean, but who's counting?

Yes, and all of that is America, isn't it?
As you said, America (north america), mexico (north/central america), canada (north america), south america, caribbian (sea in the americas).

A little imprecise, yes?

BTW, is the "how on earth did I miss this?" link in your sig supposed to lead to nothing?

[Hallistar]

Promote abortion, raise one child per family policies and cremate the dead.

[Katganistan]

BTW, is the "how on earth did I miss this?" link in your sig supposed to lead to nothing?

Yep. It's there for the irony.

[United Gordonopia]

Promote abortion, raise one child per family policies and cremate the dead.

Prepare to get flamed...

No, anyway, abortion is one good method, but I didn't bring it up in the speech. Cremation, however, will go a LONG way.

[Unidox]

Topic needs a poll.

[United Gordonopia]

Topic needs a poll.

Done

[Robarya]

If necessary it should --and probably will-- be used. Then nature will probably sort of work itself out, if the situation becomes very bad, through famines, wars, etc.

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.

It is easy to criticize, but do you think that the alternative would be any better? That is, a booming population that would be harder to support.

[Nukeobis]

Why not kill off people over 70 years of age?
Its just as bad, but this way our senior class citizens won't out populate our working class citizens which won't result in the working class inevitably becoming slaves to the senior class. Face it, people are living longer and they have to be looked after by working class citizens and if they start restricting new borns then eventually there will be a tiny working class and a huge useless senior class.
Unless of course you make the elderly do backbreaking labor, but this will result in a less efficient work force.
Just my opinion, I think its more sensible than birth control.

[United Gordonopia]

Why not kill off people over 70 years of age?
Its just as bad, but this way our senior class citizens won't out populate our working class citizens which won't result in the working class inevitably becoming slaves to the senior class. Face it, people are living longer and they have to be looked after by working class citizens and if they start restricting new borns then eventually there will be a tiny working class and a huge useless senior class.
Unless of course you make the elderly do backbreaking labor, but this will result in a less efficient work force.
Just my opinion, I think its more sensible than birth control.

A better alternative would be to get rid of the massive transfer of wealth going to the elderly.

[Tubbsalot]

Why not kill off people over 70 years of age?

Because that's absolutely heartless, easily beyond the boundary of sociopathy.

I mean, hey, why not just kill everyone but yourself? Then you can take all their shiny things.

[Nukeobis]

Why not kill off people over 70 years of age?
Its just as bad, but this way our senior class citizens won't out populate our working class citizens which won't result in the working class inevitably becoming slaves to the senior class. Face it, people are living longer and they have to be looked after by working class citizens and if they start restricting new borns then eventually there will be a tiny working class and a huge useless senior class.
Unless of course you make the elderly do backbreaking labor, but this will result in a less efficient work force.
Just my opinion, I think its more sensible than birth control.

A better alternative would be to get rid of the massive transfer of wealth going to the elderly.

So basically make them work aswell.

[Lackadaisical2]

Why not kill off people over 70 years of age?
Its just as bad, but this way our senior class citizens won't out populate our working class citizens which won't result in the working class inevitably becoming slaves to the senior class. Face it, people are living longer and they have to be looked after by working class citizens and if they start restricting new borns then eventually there will be a tiny working class and a huge useless senior class.
Unless of course you make the elderly do backbreaking labor, but this will result in a less efficient work force.
Just my opinion, I think its more sensible than birth control.

A better alternative would be to get rid of the massive transfer of wealth going to the elderly.

So basically make them work aswell.

we don't have to make them work, but dismembering useless policies like social security and medicare would be a good step.

[United Gordonopia]

Why not kill off people over 70 years of age?
Its just as bad, but this way our senior class citizens won't out populate our working class citizens which won't result in the working class inevitably becoming slaves to the senior class. Face it, people are living longer and they have to be looked after by working class citizens and if they start restricting new borns then eventually there will be a tiny working class and a huge useless senior class.
Unless of course you make the elderly do backbreaking labor, but this will result in a less efficient work force.
Just my opinion, I think its more sensible than birth control.

A better alternative would be to get rid of the massive transfer of wealth going to the elderly.

So basically make them work aswell.

we don't have to make them work, but dismembering useless policies like social security and medicare would be a good step.

Yes. They need to save more their whole lives, instead of being so frivolous and buying 2,000 sq. ft. houses, 2 cars, and tons of cloths and other products when there are only 2 people living together. If Americans spent their whole lives saving like they're doing right now, we wouldn't need social security.

Well, I'm off to bed. I can't believe how fast I've become semi-addicted to general.

[Tunizcha]

Why not kill off people over 70 years of age?

Because that's absolutely heartless, easily beyond the boundary of sociopathy.

I mean, hey, why not just kill everyone but yourself? Then you can take all their shiny things.

But then I'd have no one to brag about it with.

[Callisdrun]

No.

The Southron Nation will resist such calls for wholesale eradication of human life. these conclusions are drawn from scientific conclusions that have been disproven time and again. there is no global warming. there is no overpopulation. and there is no need to worry about dwindling resources. more than a century ago there were collectivist shills such as yourself calling for a immediate cessation of the harvesting of oil from the ground due to dwindling kerosene reserves. have we thus run out of kerosene? no. 40 years ago, collectivist shills such as yourself were making calls for an immediate reaction from the world gov'ts in order to prevent a global ice age. 30 years ago, those same fools - do not exclude yourself, esteemed emissary - realized that every human being in the world was going to starve to death b/c of our dwindling food resources. did we run out? no. 10 years after their call for gov't action to prevent global cooling and mass starvation, those same fools warned of global warming and an end of the scarcity of foodstuffs. their answers to all of these issues were the same as yours, gov't collectivism and control.

to summarize, The Southron Nation finds such calls as these to be ludicrous and laughable. collectivist controls lead only to further human suffering and poverty. we will NOT abide such nonsense in our nation.

...this isn't roleplay. The General forum is related to real life issues, not your nation.

you people are serious? jesus. i role played b/c i believed noone could be so outrageously obtuse to believe that nonsense unless they were playing the game. it doesnt really matter, b/c my RP answer is little different from my actual answer.

There isn't any RP in General. It's a completely OOC forum. Learn2nationstates.

[NERVUN]

If necessary it should --and probably will-- be used. Then nature will probably sort of work itself out, if the situation becomes very bad, through famines, wars, etc.

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.

It is easy to criticize, but do you think that the alternative would be any better? That is, a booming population that would be harder to support.

Oh, you mean an alternative of working with the people in China's countryside to better educate them that girls are just as good as boys, changing the notion that one needs a son to care for you in your old age by actually building senior care centers, and THEN doing a one child policy?

Yup, that sounds much better to me.

[NERVUN]

Well, I'm off to bed. I can't believe how fast I've become semi-addicted to general.

We're very, very good at that.

[Tunizcha]

Well, I'm off to bed. I can't believe how fast I've become semi-addicted to general.

We're very, very good at that.

"Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in. "

[The Southron Nation]

It's a completely OOC forum. Learn2nationstates.

i get that there is no role playing in the General section but im not certain that the rest of your quote is english, bub.

[Svenen (Ancient)]

Rather than using population control I think it would be better to let everyone eat eachother, mass famines, e.c.t.

[Callisdrun]

It's a completely OOC forum. Learn2nationstates.

i get that there is no role playing in the General section but im not certain that the rest of your quote is english, bub.

Translation: I'm mocking your entertaining n00bishness, and suggesting sarcastically that you spend more time acquainting yourself with the customs of this particular internet forum, as you have demonstrated a severe lack of knowledge about its ways.

[Robarya]

If necessary it should --and probably will-- be used. Then nature will probably sort of work itself out, if the situation becomes very bad, through famines, wars, etc.

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.

It is easy to criticize, but do you think that the alternative would be any better? That is, a booming population that would be harder to support.

Oh, you mean an alternative of working with the people in China's countryside to better educate them that girls are just as good as boys, changing the notion that one needs a son to care for you in your old age by actually building senior care centers, and THEN doing a one child policy?

Yup, that sounds much better to me.

When it comes to physical labor, girls are not "just as good" as boys. The male body is inherently superior in terms of strength. Besides, such a process would take generations and be very pricey. It is more realistic to simply have the one child policy and accept that there will be an unfortunate side-effect of female children being killed.

[Maurepas]

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.

That was my immediate thought too, so Id say no...

However, I find myself selfishly tempted to say that maybe if we can get them to have more daughters instead, it might not be so bad, less competition,

[Callisdrun]

If necessary it should --and probably will-- be used. Then nature will probably sort of work itself out, if the situation becomes very bad, through famines, wars, etc.

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.

It is easy to criticize, but do you think that the alternative would be any better? That is, a booming population that would be harder to support.

Oh, you mean an alternative of working with the people in China's countryside to better educate them that girls are just as good as boys, changing the notion that one needs a son to care for you in your old age by actually building senior care centers, and THEN doing a one child policy?

Yup, that sounds much better to me.

When it comes to physical labor, girls are not "just as good" as boys. The male body is inherently superior in terms of strength. Besides, such a process would take generations and be very pricey. It is more realistic to simply have the one child policy and accept that there will be an unfortunate side-effect of female children being killed.

Which in turn leads to there not being enough women for all the males to get married, which in turn leads to even less children. See how it all works out?