Population control Isn't it about time?

population control is definitely not an issue. I dont understand why people freak out over this and start thinking drastically. We have plenty of renewable resources to last us and more and more people are figuring out ways to solve our world issues.

Well, they have a way to go VarsityBlazer, we can't feed ourselves, I'm not quite sure how people miss that.

I agree with you OP, ( I'm obviously brain washed so no need to tell me- I already know ) overpopulation is a real and serious issue.

I can understand why in some countries- usually very poor ones, the people keep having children that they cant feed but theres no excuse for the same in the western world. Contrary to popular belief giving birth isnt a miracle, its a fact of life- and why some people have to have 6 7 8..10 even 20 miracles is beyond me.

We cant sustain ourselves, it's that simple. and we've left it too long to change, the writing is on the wall for humans

Reply to post by lifecitizen

I agree I keep seeing people bring up the many different techonologies that are not in use that could facilitate billions of humans or people talking about how much land is left on the Earth without taking into account the affect using it would have on the biodiversity of the planet and eventually us. The fact is we need to keep ourselves in check.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by acmpnsfal


keep ourselves in check... have you see the state of the planet? but I agree a reality check is what we need, we are totally out of control! talk about make a mess of things

reply to post by lifecitizen

I can understand why in some countries- usually very poor ones, the people keep having children that they cant feed but theres no excuse for the same in the western world.

I have the opposite opinion.

It is in these poor countries where population control is needed, they are the ones that cannot feed themselves and their procreation only serves to perpetuate and increase their suffering.

In western world we should have more children, because many nations are already dying out, we can actually afford it, and it is these children that will be the future scientists and productive people with access to education and resources, pushing humanity further.

Originally posted by nonono
reply to post by Reaper2137

 

It takes a special brand of fool to think that no such thing as overpopulation exists. Flash news: if I eat my cake, you can't have it too! It's not rocket surgery, my 79-years-old grandma gets it... it's common sense. If you ever gave any kind of party at your house, you should have no problem grasping this simple concept. It seems that people on ATS watch Zeitgeist and think they've been revealed some kind of great hidden truth about the world. Oooh, Illuminati bla bla... evil corporations, power to the people, free energy etc etc. The real world just doesn't work the way they like, or even the way they think it does. Population control is not an option, it's a necessity... the sooner you learn to accept it, the better!

Nature can govern herself. She does it through the laws of physics, and geologically/biologically she does it through natural selection. She doesn't need anyone's god complex to tell her how.

reply to post by imherejusttoread


So tell me, how nature will solve human overpopulation?

reply to post by Maslo


The same way she handled the Neanderthals. Natural selection and the natural economy.

If you want an example, I recommend Professor Dawkin's Greatest Show on Earth book, chapter 12, 'Arms races and 'evolutionary theodicy', if you want to see how it would work.

reply to post by imherejusttoread


So you mean death, starvation, diseases and wars.. Are you really saying it would be better than government population control program?

Originally posted by Maslo
So you mean death, starvation, diseases and wars.. Are you really saying it would be better than government population control program?

There is death, starvation, diseases, and wars right now. Population control will just result in more death, starvation, diseases, and wars.

It is in these poor countries where population control is needed, they are the ones that cannot feed themselves and their procreation only serves to perpetuate and increase their suffering.

They aren't the only ones, and they don't have the access to education resources that we have in the west. They dont know any better.

In western world we should have more children, because many nations are already dying out, we can actually afford it, and it is these children that will be the future scientists and productive people with access to education and resources, pushing humanity further.

Can America afford social security? How many on food stamps there now- 1 in 6? how many homeless?

Here in Australia we throw substantial money at people to have babies- and what we have achieved is the wrong type of people having babies- where I live we have the youngest mothers in the nation- just another generation of people dependant on social security- trust me theres no future scientists being bred here. Or on the food stamp streets of America.

reply to post by imherejusttoread


Nope, it will prevent the starvation, diseases and wars which are now caused by overpopulation. It will certainly not result in more of it than without it, that does not make any sense.

Regulating high population growth through laws is certainly more civilised and moral than regulating it through wars and starvation.

Natural does not imply good. Artificial does not imply bad.

Originally posted by Maslo
Nope, it will prevent the starvation, diseases and wars which are now caused by overpopulation.

There's no evidence for that: the only starvation, diseases, and wars that I see in the civilized world come directly from attempting to control other people/centralized planning.

Regulating high population growth through laws is certainly more civilised and moral than regulating it through wars and starvation.

Treating people like cattle is not civilized nor moral.

reply to post by imherejusttoread

There's no evidence for that: the only starvation, diseases, and wars that I see in the civilized world come directly from attempting to control other people/centralized planning.

I am not talking about the civilised world, there is no overpopulation, and no starvation or wars in civilised world. And we have good evidence population control programs help in the third world (China, Iran...)

Treating people like cattle is not civilized nor moral.

There is nothing wrong with stoping people from procreation when they are going to have children while not being able to provide for them. Just like there is nothing wrong with stopping people from murder or other crimes which harm third person - not stopping them is immoral.

Are you saying that stoping people from harming third persons is "treating them like cattle"? Then by all means, we should do so.

reply to post by TheUniverse


Yeah that's the right thinking, let's just go ahead and level the few remaining wilderness area to make room for all these 60 billion people.

What a knob

Originally posted by Maslo
There is nothing wrong with stoping people from procreation. . .

There certainly is: them or their bodies are not your property, or anyone else's. To assume that it is through implementing population control is to also assume that you yourself have no ownership over your body or your identity and are equally at fault for your over-population assent and thus your very assertion of over-population is a contradiction. Either you want to live or you don't, and if you do, then everyone else has that right, equally, and that includes procreating.

Originally posted by imherejusttoread There certainly is: them or their bodies are not your property, or anyone else's. To assume that it is through implementing population control is to also assume that you yourself have no ownership over your body or your identity and are equally at fault for your over-population assent and thus your very assertion of over-population is a contradiction.

You are correct – people can procreate all they want up to the point where the governments start taking my property to provide for the offspring that others created but cannot support.

If people want to exercise the right to procreate they have to accept the responsibility to provide for their offspring absent intervention from other people. Another person's offspring are not my problem.

Originally posted by imherejusttoreadEither you want to live or you don't, and if you do, then everyone else has that right, equally, and that includes procreating.

Yep, sure do - I want to live and enjoy all the fruits of my own labor without having them confiscated and redistributed "for the sake of" some other person’s children that they created without the means or ability to support.

I contend if a person needs to sponge money off other people to provide for their children then the same government that forcibly steals that money from others to give the support can and should forcibly restrict their access to continue the practice until they demonstrate the means or ability to support more offspring absent intervention.

Indulging the idiots who have children they can't support with benefits and support without demanding they stop procreating only enables them to propagate the cycle further.

This is true at the international, national, state, local and even individual level.

reply to post by imherejusttoread

and that includes procreating.

Nope, right to live does not imply right to procreate in any way.

You should have rights only for things which do not negatively affect another, third person (except things required for survival, thats the only situation which justifies harming others).

Procreation cannot be a basic personal right, since it deeply affects another, third persons without their consent - the children (or taxpayers when there is child welfare), and also is not a basic necessity for survival. So procreating while you are unable to provide for the resulting children is harming the children when there is no child welfare (never existing, which is neutral, is better than existing in bad conditions, which is bad), or taxpayers when there is. Either way, there will be harm to third persons.

Harming others without it being necessary for survival should not be allowed in civilised societies. Ergo procreating while you wont be able to provide for the children should not be allowed in civilised societies.

OP is a wrong. He tries to solve a problem by fixing the outcome of the issue and not its cause. Overpopulation is not a cause it's a result of current technological developments and progress. Reducing the population of the globe will not fix your problem, which is life style and values that are promoted at the expense of this planet and its quality of life, including us. We are slowly destroying ourselves.

Earth can carry many more dozens of billion of people, but not like this. Too much waste, greed, lack of respect for nature and ourselves. Overpopulation control or its reduction only hides the true problem.

He is right in one respect, if we continue on this path then indeed we will have to kill ourselves because we cannot all live in expensive yachts and have bullionaries all over. Its either a paradigm change or self destruction. OP seems to mitigate for the worst solution.

I'm surprised you study this at your uni and fail to see this.

Originally posted by Golf66

You are correct – people can procreate all they want up to the point where the governments start taking my property to provide for the offspring that others created but cannot support.

If people want to exercise the right to procreate they have to accept the responsibility to provide for their offspring absent intervention from other people. Another person's offspring are not my problem.

Yep, sure do - I want to live and enjoy all the fruits of my own labor without having them confiscated and redistributed "for the sake of" some other person’s children that they created without the means or ability to support.

I contend if a person needs to sponge money off other people to provide for their children then the same government that forcibly steals that money from others to give the support can and should forcibly restrict their access to continue the practice until they demonstrate the means or ability to support more offspring absent intervention.

Indulging the idiots who have children they can't support with benefits and support without demanding they stop procreating only enables them to propagate the cycle further.

This is true at the international, national, state, local and even individual level.

I agree with this, and if the government redistributes to compensate for those who can't provide for their offspring then it is the government who needs fixing, not the persons, as nature will take it's proper course whether government is present or not. However, my objection was using government to force people to do things against their will or desires.