PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Little Joe on July 06, 2019, 08:39:20 AM
-
I feel like stirring up a little shit today.
Almost all of the world's problems are due to too many people. How would you fix that?
I'd start by making birth control not only free, but mandatory for anyone with more than 3 kids, or anyone on any sort of public assistance. (abortion is a separate issue). I'd also propose research for a way to distribute birth control to countries we don't like via chemtrails, or some other sort of environmental distribution.
I have some other ideas too, which are probably even more deplorable.
How would you go about reducing the world population to a manageable number. I'm thinking about 2.5 to 3 billion people worldwide would be about right.
-
Communism has done a pretty good job of reducing populations as well as a few dictators.
However, I don’t endorse their methods.
Population control comes about through education and modernization of society.
-
Almost all of the world's problems are due to too many people. How would you fix that?
moving off planet
-
The real issue is slowing down the growth of the Muslim population. They reproduce like rabbits while we are not keeping even. They will overrun the world at some point in the future.
-
I don't have a good answer. I think innovation and technology that we don't even know about yet can solve much of it as far as food, living space, water, etc. Population reduction, or slowing the rate of growth can come from more use of birth control. At least in the U.S. people can get birth control very cheaply and even for free much of the time.
Just in the U.S., I think metro area growth is just happening too fast. Even outer suburbs and ex-burbs are getting much more crowded. Then almost everyone going there either is a Democrat, or becomes a Democrat.
Also, Muslim, African, and Hispanic populations are growing way too fast. Often they are poor and uneducated, so can not grasp birth control, nor even support their children.
-
Population control comes about through education and modernization of society.
This. As nations rise economically, their birth rate plummets. The problem is not too many people; the problem is an imbalance between the advanced nations and the poor ones and the long term problem is going to be too few births. This planet has way more than enough space and resources to support many more times our current population. Forced population control is the worst thing you could do. Not only does it deny people the basic human freedom of reproduction, it backfires as China is finding out:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/17/world/asia/china-population-crisis.html
Population naturally declines when the economy industrializes and moves away from subsistence farming. Women getting educations and careers may be the single greatest factor limiting birth rates because it gives women meaning and purpose beyond motherhood and rising household income removes the need for children to work for family survival. Children become a financial liability rather than a financial asset. Of course access to birth control is needed and as a country modernizes it gains access unless there are religious prohibitions.
Pockets of religious “cults” such as Mormons, Amish, Hasidic Jews, some Catholics and Muslims still reproduce prolifically but in general the higher a nation comes economically the lower their overall birth rate until replacement is threatened. When you go negative with replacement you are heading for extinction.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/07/japans-birth-rate-problem-is-way-worse-than-anyone-imagined/?utm_term=.f4d850c1ca7d
All the developed nations will face Japan’s problem eventually. Right now countries such as the U.S. with its legal and illegal immigration do not seem to be in danger but it’s masked. The population growth is among the lower socioeconomic groups and creating an imbalance. Illegal immigrants are no longer just from Mexico but from all over the world, where economic conditions are worse than here.
The two biggest areas of over population are India and Africa and in both much of the problem is due to poverty. If these areas pull themselves up out of poverty the population will stabilize and then eventually could begin to decline as what is happening in China.
The goal should not be to reduce the world’s birth rate. The goal should be to achieve a high standard of living everywhere in the world and to keep the birth rate around replacement (roughly equal to the number of deaths). Population should stabilize somewhere around 10 billion.
-
The real issue is slowing down the growth of the Muslim population. They reproduce like rabbits while we are not keeping even. They will overrun the world at some point in the future.
We will either slow the birth rate of muslims or they will reduce the population of the earth by war
-
This. As nations rise economically, their birth rate plummets. The problem is not too many people; the problem is an imbalance between the advanced nations and the poor ones and the long term problem is going to be too few births. This planet has way more than enough space and resources to support many more times our current population. Forced population control is the worst thing you could do. Not only does it deny people the basic human freedom of reproduction, it backfires as China is finding out:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/17/world/asia/china-population-crisis.html
Population naturally declines when the economy industrializes and moves away from subsistence farming. Women getting educations and careers may be the single greatest factor limiting birth rates because it gives women meaning and purpose beyond motherhood and rising household income removes the need for children to work for family survival. Children become a financial liability rather than a financial asset. Of course access to birth control is needed and as a country modernizes it gains access unless there are religious prohibitions.
Pockets of religious “cults” such as Mormons, Amish, Hasidic Jews, some Catholics and Muslims still reproduce prolifically but in general the higher a nation comes economically the lower their overall birth rate until replacement is threatened. When you go negative with replacement you are heading for extinction.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/07/japans-birth-rate-problem-is-way-worse-than-anyone-imagined/?utm_term=.f4d850c1ca7d
All the developed nations will face Japan’s problem eventually. Right now countries such as the U.S. with its legal and illegal immigration do not seem to be in danger but it’s masked. The population growth is among the lower socioeconomic groups and creating an imbalance. Illegal immigrants are no longer just from Mexico but from all over the world, where economic conditions are worse than here.
The two biggest areas of over population are India and Africa and in both much of the problem is due to poverty. If these areas pull themselves up out of poverty the population will stabilize and then eventually could begin to decline as what is happening in China.
The goal should not be to reduce the world’s birth rate. The goal should be to achieve a high standard of living everywhere in the world and to keep the birth rate around replacement (roughly equal to the number of deaths). Population should stabilize somewhere around 10 billion.
Rush, everything you say is true: In the land of Unicorns and Rainbows.
Sure, eliminate poverty and educate everyone sounds like a good answer. Perhaps we should provide a universal basic income and provide free education and health care to everyone. Where have I heard that before. It sure sounds good, but in the real world, it doesn't work.
And it won't work if only the developed nations commit to lowering birth rates. That would just give those nations with violently religious leaders and followers that hate us a huge advantage.
If we continue to overload our planet with people by doing as you say, we will see more of the results we are already seeing. What I mean is, look at the huge population areas and what is going on there; they are all becoming bastions of socialism, because that is the only way to control the actions of huge numbers of people. You don't see near those kinds of problems in the sparsely populated areas.
War and birth control are the only viable answers. That and get rid of vaccines and health insurance and let Darwin work it out.
-
Rush, everything you say is true: In the land of Unicorns and Rainbows.
Sure, eliminate poverty and educate everyone sounds like a good answer. Perhaps we should provide a universal basic income and provide free education and health care to everyone. Where have I heard that before. It sure sounds good, but in the real world, it doesn't work.
?? Is there something in what I said that implies I think socialism is how to accomplish these things?? Good grief, I hope you know me better than that. Capitalism is the answer - good old profit motive. Market competition. Exposure to the first world among the young through technology is going to rapidly increase the rate third world nations modernize, if they can avoid repressive regimes. I said, "The goal should be to achieve a high standard of living," I did NOT say, "This should be done by utopian collectivist schemes."
And it won't work if only the developed nations commit to lowering birth rates. That would just give those nations with violently religious leaders and followers that hate us a huge advantage.
You are completely missing my point. Nobody needs to commit to lowering birth rates. Not as public policy. It's done by individual choice when the micro-economic environment (family budget) flips from children being an asset to children being a liability. It happens automatically.
Those places with violently religious leaders and followers may indeed always be a problem and if so war should always be on the table. But in all those places (such as Iran) there is a huge portion of the people yearning to be free of that yoke and join the rest of us sane people.
If we continue to overload our planet with people by doing as you say, we will see more of the results we are already seeing. What I mean is, look at the huge population areas and what is going on there; they are all becoming bastions of socialism, because that is the only way to control the actions of huge numbers of people. You don't see near those kinds of problems in the sparsely populated areas.
The problem in those areas is not overpopulation on a planetary scale. It is local overcrowding. The two are not the same. And in these urban situations, are they bastions of socialism because they are overcrowded? Or are they overcrowded because they are bastions of socialism? The problem of cities isn't too many people; it's people not engaged in productive jobs. I grant that local overcrowding makes people irritable. But the percent of land we occupy is a very tiny portion of the planet. There is plenty of room for us to spread out very comfortably. You are right rural people IMO are doing it better. The issue is the economics of cities, not that there are too many humans for the planet to hold.
This goes to your original post:
Almost all of the world's problems are due to too many people. How would you fix that?
I disagree with your premise. The world's problems are not due to too many people. In fact, how do you define "problems"? War? Poverty? Famine? Disease? Climate change? All of these plagued humans from cave man days.
War and birth control are the only viable answers. That and get rid of vaccines and health insurance and let Darwin work it out.
This assumes there is a problem that needs answers, and I submit that there is not, not in the long term. Overpopulation and overcrowding are temporary and localized in the grand scheme of things. Traffic congestion; a variation of man's territoriality. We've been territorial since the beginning and that will not change. When I buy a house with a bigger lot size, I am no more inclined to tolerate my neighbor encroaching on my land. If there were only two humans left, one in each hemisphere, they'd be hostile to each other. Overpopulation isn't the problem; human nature is.
But don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a good war wipe out big swaths of certain humans. ;D
-
?? Is there something in what I said that implies I think socialism is how to accomplish these things?? Good grief, I hope you know me better than that.
Of course I know you better than to believe that. I was saying that I believe that socialism would be an unintended consequence of packing more and more people tighter together. Whether urban centers are socialistic because they are over crowded, or they are crowded together because they are socialistic doesn't matter. The two always go together. Of course I understand the difference between correlation and cause, but that is what happens when there area too many people.
You are completely missing my point. Nobody needs to commit to lowering birth rates. Not as public policy. It's done by individual choice when the micro-economic environment (family budget) flips from children being an asset to children being a liability. It happens automatically.
Those places with violently religious leaders and followers may indeed always be a problem and if so war should always be on the table. But in all those places (such as Iran) there is a huge portion of the people yearning to be free of that yoke and join the rest of us sane people.
Perhaps, but they tend to come over here and want to change us to be like them.
The problem in those areas is not overpopulation on a planetary scale. It is local overcrowding. The two are not the same. And in these urban situations, are they bastions of socialism because they are overcrowded? Or are they overcrowded because they are bastions of socialism?
Already addressed.
The problem of cities isn't too many people; it's people not engaged in productive jobs. I grant that local overcrowding makes people irritable. But the percent of land we occupy is a very tiny portion of the planet. There is plenty of room for us to spread out very comfortably. You are right rural people IMO are doing it better. The issue is the economics of cities, not that there are too many humans for the planet to hold.
I disagree. There are too many people. The more people you have, the more BAD people you have. And just like it only takes one bad apple to ruin the barrel, it only takes a few bad people to ruin it for everyone. That is why we have so many laws and so many criminals and so many prisons. One of my other suggestions is to free all the non-violent criminals and execute the rest. Then the prison guards can get productive jobs.
This goes to your original post:
I disagree with your premise. The world's problems are not due to too many people. In fact, how do you define "problems"? War? Poverty? Famine? Disease? Climate change? All of these plagued humans from cave man days.
I refer t problems like war, environmental destruction, crime and governmental corruption. And by environmental destruction, I don't mean climate change. I mean everyday pollution that prohibits me from drinking from mountain streams like I did when I was a kid. I'm talking about all the plastic that line the river in front of my house and the beach and that is killing turtles and sharks and whales and everything else that lives in the ocean. I'm talking about "induced" poverty where people are rewarded for being non-productive. I'm talking about my wife being afraid to take a walk alone at night.
This assumes there is a problem that needs answers, and I submit that there is not, not in the long term. Overpopulation and overcrowding are temporary and localized in the grand scheme of things. Traffic congestion; a variation of man's territoriality. We've been territorial since the beginning and that will not change. When I buy a house with a bigger lot size, I am no more inclined to tolerate my neighbor encroaching on my land. If there were only two humans left, one in each hemisphere, they'd be hostile to each other. Overpopulation isn't the problem; human nature is.. True, human nature is the problem. ergo, fewer humans, fewer problems.
But don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a good war wipe out big swaths of certain humans. ;D
That would be a good start.
-
You are completely missing my point. Nobody needs to commit to lowering birth rates. Not as public policy. It's done by individual choice when the micro-economic environment (family budget) flips from children being an asset to children being a liability. It happens automatically.
I missed this. And while I do believe the birth rate will decline if we subsidizing poor people having children. I knew a young single mother with three kids in a two bedroom apartment. She said she wanted a 3 bedroom apartment. When asked how she would pay for it, she said she could always have another child and get a bigger section 8 apartment, and other benefits.
But why is it that some of the poorest nations on earth have the highest birth rates?
-
Of course I know you better than to believe that. I was saying that I believe that socialism would be an unintended consequence of packing more and more people tighter together. Whether urban centers are socialistic because they are over crowded, or they are crowded together because they are socialistic doesn't matter. The two always go together. Of course I understand the difference between correlation and cause, but that is what happens when there area too many people.
I don't know if they always go together. They do go together in the U.S. today but I don't know why they have to. I do believe that when people become removed from the source of their survival (food and energy) then their politics change. They tend to feel entitled to be given these things without understanding them. That could be a core reason cities tend to turn leftist. So you may be right that cities tend to become socialist, but it's not because they are crowded. It's because the inhabitants are not growing their own food and working to produce their own energy. Among many other reasons.
Perhaps, but they tend to come over here and want to change us to be like them.
Now they do and I agree that's a bad thing. In the past they assimilated.
I disagree. There are too many people. The more people you have, the more BAD people you have. And just like it only takes one bad apple to ruin the barrel, it only takes a few bad people to ruin it for everyone. That is why we have so many laws and so many criminals and so many prisons. One of my other suggestions is to free all the non-violent criminals and execute the rest. Then the prison guards can get productive jobs.
I'm with you on prisons. Free the non-violent and execute the rest. Maybe keep the criminally insane in maximum security psychiatric hospitals. Prisons are not good for people or for society.
The more people you have the more bad people is true, but also the more good people and smart people. The problem is when the bad and inferior people reproduce faster than the good or superior people. By "inferior" and "superior" I am not assigning spiritual value as a human life, I am talking about contribution to society in the way of physical or intellectual work. Are you a producer or are you a parasite? When the parasites reproduce at a higher rate, we do indeed have a serious problem and a relative increase in "bad" people. Lower socioeconomic groups have higher rates of anti-social personality disorders, lower intelligence, and other problems that are partly responsible for their inability to improve their condition.
I refer t problems like war, environmental destruction, crime and governmental corruption. And by environmental destruction, I don't mean climate change. I mean everyday pollution that prohibits me from drinking from mountain streams like I did when I was a kid. I'm talking about all the plastic that line the river in front of my house and the beach and that is killing turtles and sharks and whales and everything else that lives in the ocean. I'm talking about "induced" poverty where people are rewarded for being non-productive. I'm talking about my wife being afraid to take a walk alone at night.
These are all localized crowding. The problem is density, not total human numbers. The planet has so much unused space.
The proportion of people living in cities vs rural areas is growing. This is being driven by the mechanization of food production and the concentration of wealth creation centers. It's not a good imbalance because as they become urbanized people tend to become politically liberal. It all goes back to them being distanced from being directly involved in their own survival (food and energy production). They start to feel entitled to the products of others' labor.
-
I missed this. And while I do believe the birth rate will decline if we subsidizing poor people having children. I knew a young single mother with three kids in a two bedroom apartment. She said she wanted a 3 bedroom apartment. When asked how she would pay for it, she said she could always have another child and get a bigger section 8 apartment, and other benefits.
That's deplorable.
But why is it that some of the poorest nations on earth have the highest birth rates?
Nevermind American welfare, in the poor nations they have a high birth rate because each child has a lower chance of surviving to adulthood, and because they believe more children will help the family survive and will take care of them in old age, and often the cultures support very young marriages. Uneducated women have babies because it's all they can do, they have no grander purpose in life. And of course if they have no access to modern birth control, there will be a high birth rate.