Population Control Solves Alot of Problems

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Shubedobedubopbopbedo
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 9:38 pm

Population Control Solves Alot of Problems

Postby Shubedobedubopbopbedo » Sun Nov 22, 2009 12:12 am

Population control has been suggested as a universal solution to problems such as limited resource depletion, food shortages, pollution, war, poverty, education, etc. It has been demonstrated to solve similar problems with game animal popuations, who are otherwise ravaged by diseases, starvation, territorial fighting, and mass die-offs.

Many problems such as energy shortages, infrastructure decay, resource depletion, etc, will require technological advances to solve, which may or may not be possible, or require the tapping of resources using environmentally devastating processes. Population control can solve these problems without destroying the environment, and without having faith in technological predictions that may or may not ever become a reality.

Population control can be achieved equitably using an annual quota and childbirth license trading system. It would work in much the same way as carbon trading, people who want to have more kids would buy more credits.

Yes, wealthy countries would have more kids, unless the cost of the license was adjusted based on a country's GDP per capita. That means a childbirth license would be as accessible to people of poor nations as wealthy nations.

Still, wealthy individuals will be able to afford more licenses, but that is true of any commodity. And people should have the right to choose how they spend their money.

In this way, childbirth quotas can be set globally.

The only question remains is: How many childbirth licenses should be issued each year?

This is a complex question that can be addressed using a combination of birthrates, death rates, resource wealth per capita, end state population target, etc.

What do YOU think the world population should be?

alexjrgreen
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Postby alexjrgreen » Sun Nov 22, 2009 12:27 am

If Sarah Palin couldn't stop her daughter getting pregnant, what makes you think any of this would work?
Ars artis est celare artem.

kurt9
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Re: Population Control Solves Alot of Problems

Postby kurt9 » Sun Nov 22, 2009 1:40 am

Shubedobedubopbopbedo wrote:Population control has been suggested as a universal solution to problems such as limited resource depletion, food shortages, pollution, war, poverty, education, etc. It has been demonstrated to solve similar problems with game animal popuations, who are otherwise ravaged by diseases, starvation, territorial fighting, and mass die-offs.

Many problems such as energy shortages, infrastructure decay, resource depletion, etc, will require technological advances to solve, which may or may not be possible, or require the tapping of resources using environmentally devastating processes. Population control can solve these problems without destroying the environment, and without having faith in technological predictions that may or may not ever become a reality.

Population control can be achieved equitably using an annual quota and childbirth license trading system. It would work in much the same way as carbon trading, people who want to have more kids would buy more credits.

Yes, wealthy countries would have more kids, unless the cost of the license was adjusted based on a country's GDP per capita. That means a childbirth license would be as accessible to people of poor nations as wealthy nations.

Still, wealthy individuals will be able to afford more licenses, but that is true of any commodity. And people should have the right to choose how they spend their money.

In this way, childbirth quotas can be set globally.

The only question remains is: How many childbirth licenses should be issued each year?

This is a complex question that can be addressed using a combination of birthrates, death rates, resource wealth per capita, end state population target, etc.

What do YOU think the world population should be?


This is self-correcting based on economic development. According to the Economist, the global fertility as dropped below 2.1, the replacement level. All regions of the world, except for Sub-Saharan Africa are either at or below replacement fertility now.

MirariNefas
Posts: 354
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:57 am

Postby MirariNefas » Sun Nov 22, 2009 1:47 am

Yes, wealthy countries would have more kids,


Have you checked out birth rates in wealthy countries lately? They don't want kids anyway.

kunkmiester
Posts: 876
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:51 pm
Contact:

Postby kunkmiester » Sun Nov 22, 2009 2:08 am

As people get richer, they want more leisure time. This means fewer kids, if any. Industrialization leads to a drop in the birth rate, Al Fin blogs about it regularly, among other sources.
Evil is evil, no matter how small

Skipjack
Posts: 6045
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Postby Skipjack » Sun Nov 22, 2009 2:22 am

The sad truth is that the europeans and european americans are diing out anyway, because they have no children (below 1.4 in Europe).
Population control is more something for countries like China and especially India. Muslim countries are also having to many children.
But try telling them that! In some muslim countries you can get legally executed for suggesting birth control...
Also, I only care about this world if I can have children to leave it to. If I was without children, I could care less. Even with best predictions of medical advancement I will die in 100 years. Why would I care what comes after me if I dont have children?

MirariNefas
Posts: 354
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:57 am

Postby MirariNefas » Sun Nov 22, 2009 2:41 am

Skipjack wrote:Why would I care what comes after me if I dont have children?


Because you have nephews and nieces?

Shubedobedubopbopbedo
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 9:38 pm

Postby Shubedobedubopbopbedo » Sun Nov 22, 2009 2:59 am

kunkmiester wrote:As people get richer, they want more leisure time. This means fewer kids, if any. Industrialization leads to a drop in the birth rate, Al Fin blogs about it regularly, among other sources.



So, wealth per capita is tied to industrialization, which is tied to energy consumption.

When energy supply decreases, the wealth per capita drops. The only way to prevent a population explosion (which seems to happen when people are poor), would be to maintain the same industrial level with low energy technology, or to reduce population.

This begs the question: if energy supply drops by 30% over 20 years, how fast can population be decreased to compensate?

Just sayin.

AcesHigh
Posts: 652
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:59 am

Postby AcesHigh » Sun Nov 22, 2009 3:29 am

remember that declining populations cause LOTS of economic problems, because its the active young population that pays for the retirement of old people.

the solution with declining population is for people to retire older and older... the problem with this is that we are living more but usually not in health (or mental health) to compete with young people.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Sun Nov 22, 2009 4:12 am

Population control has been suggested as a universal solution to problems such as limited resource depletion, food shortages, pollution, war, poverty, education, etc.


I think people need to realize a population of 10 billion can do things a population of 1 billion can't.

It has been demonstrated to solve similar problems with game animal popuations, who are otherwise ravaged by diseases, starvation, territorial fighting, and mass die-offs.


We're much better at self-organization than other animals.

This begs the question: if energy supply drops by 30% over 20 years, how fast can population be decreased to compensate?


Energy supply should never fall.

The only question remains is: How many childbirth licenses should be issued each year?


That's a horribly fascist notion. You have no right to tell anyone whether they can reproduce.

kunkmiester
Posts: 876
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:51 pm
Contact:

Postby kunkmiester » Sun Nov 22, 2009 4:16 am

The solution(purely theoretically, there's a host of other issues here) would be to transfer populations so that an average density is maintained, while industrializing other areas so that the preference for a lower birth rate is spread.

And there are exceptions. Mormons, for example, tend to have large families, despite having the benefits of industrialization. Muslims would be similar, since large families are part of personal, cultural, and religious beliefs. Proper social engineering can convince people to moderate the population. The big deal is, you don't want the trend Japan and Europe are seeing right now, and America soon will be--A growing retired population relying on a shrinking working population for support. Extending the retirement age might not work for very long. You could allow industrial advancement to increase the productivity of the working population(Japan is doing this with robots) to compensate, but carbon tax, "fannie med," union luddites, and a slew of other challenges, mostly from the left, block this.
Evil is evil, no matter how small

Shubedobedubopbopbedo
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 9:38 pm

Postby Shubedobedubopbopbedo » Sun Nov 22, 2009 4:37 am

TallDave wrote:I think people need to realize a population of 10 billion can do things a population of 1 billion can't.


Like what?

TallDave wrote:We're much better at self-organization than other animals.


But are we really good enough for global organization? And would a population of 10 billion be easier or harder to organize?

TallDave wrote:Energy supply should never fall.


Well sure. But oil supplies in the US have indeed dropped by 30% since the 1970s. This is where the whole notion of peak oil has come from - it's an established fact. The same is expected to happen worldwide at an unknown time in the future. We might come up with reasonably practical electric cars to replace gas cars, but the energy has to come from somewhere. Whatever replaces fossil fuels will be more difficult & expensive to use. This follows from the fact that fossil fuels were so easily used by more primitive industrial societies. Look at how our brightest minds struggle to come up with a replacement!

TallDave wrote:That's a horribly fascist notion (childbirth licenses). You have no right to tell anyone whether they can reproduce.


Well, I think it's reasonable. It's really a matter of opinion what constitutes a fascist notion. I would agree with you if the childbirth licenses were issued in a racist or otherwise discriminatory manner. But that's not what I'm proposing.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sun Nov 22, 2009 6:39 am

AcesHigh wrote:remember that declining populations cause LOTS of economic problems, because its the active young population that pays for the retirement of old people.

the solution with declining population is for people to retire older and older... the problem with this is that we are living more but usually not in health (or mental health) to compete with young people.


Doc B was looking good at age 74.

I'm only 65. I look forward to a few more good years.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sun Nov 22, 2009 6:42 am

And would a population of 10 billion be easier or harder to organize?


Depends on how it is done. Be patient and let spontaneous order handle it. Or have some all knowing and all powerful individual or group giving orders.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sun Nov 22, 2009 6:46 am

Sub,

A little study of human thermodynamics may be in order.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... d-red.html

You are proposing a typical one size fits all solution.

Delusions of grandeur?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests