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

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Well sure. But oil supplies in the US have indeed dropped by 30% since the 1970s.
I don't think so. Reserves are the same. Consumption is up. Tapping new resources is politically verboten.

So we import.

We do not have a resource problem. We have a political problem.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Carl White
Posts: 476
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:44 pm

Post by Carl White »

In every developed country (save for the United States), birthrate has fallen below replacement rate.

Raise the standard of living in the undeveloped countries and populations might well decline everywhere in the world.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

Shubedobedubopbopbedo wrote:It's really a matter of opinion what constitutes a fascist notion.
Would killing off a bunch of people to control population be considered a fascist notion.

Would castrating anyone who refused to buy your license be considered a fascist notion?

Really, what do we do with those people/countries that refuse your proposition?

I don't know if the term fascist applies to the idea of telling people how many children they are allowed to have. But I do know what I would call it.

Wrong.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

What a lot of utter codswallop.

The idea that a world whose population do not even agree on what are the inalienable liberties of individuals, let alone put in place a common currency or common language to aid agreements and smooth discord, could possibly implement some pan-global, species-restriction politics which is generally complied with?

(Could I sue Shoobydooby in the Small Claims Court for my wasting my time reading this thread?)

Population restriction is governed by the four horsemen in the event that the population fails to regulate itself adequately. Everything else is derivative of the path they choose to trample down excess populations.
Shubedobedubopbopbedo wrote: What do YOU think the world population should be?
Whatever it is today. And tomorrow it should be whatever it is tomorrow.

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Post by Helius »

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!
I realize it took you a second to write these three sentences, but I think it reflects a widely held view, a kind of 'knee jerk' energy philosophy that helps bind us to the status quo.

It was not "easy" moving from wood and dung to Oil, Gas, and Coal. It was a centuries long process to dig our current hole of fossil fuel dependence. There are a lot of Fantastically smart people *not* working on developing new energy sources, but instead working on maximizing the value of refined fossil stocks. If the price of heating oil goes up, and the price of propane goes down, modern refineries can adjust to the price change, for example. It took awhile for such science and engineering to develop.

There are a lot of fantastically smart people also trying to ensure the continued value of Fossil energy inventories in the ground as well as plant and equipment, and trying to ensure continued revenue streams for the next decade to come.

The problem for alternatives is the next decade is a moving window, so fossil fuel political actions become a real problem for those whom wish to try to replace fossil fuel with other sources. There are many energy dense sources of energy that could compete with, and eventually exceed Fossil fuel in total energy produced, but in the US, fossil interests are strong, and government focus has been successfully cast with the help of those interests upon very "power diffuse" sources of energy; Such sources will never compete with fossil fuel sources, but may enhance the revenue streams instead. We can think of wind energy being very closely related to natural gas. Wind power will certainly enhance Natural gas revenue streams, not diminish it.

It is not that our "brightest minds" struggle but fail to come up with a replacement, because very little is being done to research them relative to the intelligence and other resources being applied to enhancing and ensuring the continuity of existing revenue streams benefiting politically powerful fossil fuel sources.

If you want to see energy sources more power dense than fossil fuel sources, I hope you're young, because it'll be awhile. It probably won't come from the United states either, because of the political power of fossil fuel interests. Look instead toward China, India, Japan, whom are more either desperate for feeding a growing population, and/or aren't so stymied by a well established fossil fuel political interest.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Again, why should the Europeans and the American Europeans, who already have below self sustaining birth rates be the ones that willingly reduce their population even further?
I want anyone who says "birth control" go and tell that to people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Niger, Burundi, Liberia, Congo, Samoa, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc.
Then come back to me and tell me what happened. In half of these countries you would be executed for even mentioning this idea. In the other half you will be laughed at.
China is the only exception. There you will just be lied at ;)
Even Israel has a comparably fast growing population. Someone dare to tell a jew not to procreate? I think you are getting on very dangerous territory here!! I would call that fascist!
Yet for some reason it seems to be acceptable to suggest that to the Europeans. The one people that is already declining faster in numbers than other people are rising in numbers. Why does everyone think it is OK if we go and play dinosaur and become extinct?
After all, we are the ones who brought almost all the cultural and technological achievements that the rest of the world is benefiting of right now. And then we should just die out and leave it to the others, so they can benefit from what we built without limitations?
Excellent plan!
Because you have nephews and nieces?
If we all stuck to that plan, I wouldnt have any of those either.
Also, the further away the genetical relation, the less I care.

BenTC
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:54 am

Post by BenTC »

TallDave wrote:You have no right to tell anyone whether they can reproduce.
No, thats the role of religion. Some religions are trying to breed themselves a power base. While that may have worked a hundred years ago, they need to think harder about the morality of it in todays overcrowded world.

BenTC
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:54 am

Post by BenTC »

One reason poor countries have larger families is fear. More children increases the chances of the parents having someone to support them in their old age. Improve the standard of living, provide a government sponsored social safety net, and watch the birth rate decline. Thats similar to the selfish arguments for:
  • supporting the dole for the unemployed - people that would otherwise hurt and rob you for their own survival, are moved off the street to sit in front of a TV.
  • legalising drugs - taking the money out of the industry removes the incentive to corrupt officials, removes the incentive to tempt new customers, removes the incentive for junkies to hurt and rob you for their survival (a junkie that is all junked up is no harm to anyone.)

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

One reason poor countries have larger families is fear. More children increases the chances of the parents having someone to support them in their old age. Improve the standard of living, provide a government sponsored social safety net, and watch the birth rate decline.
Not true! India and especially China are fairly social and rich by now, yet they still have growing populations. Turks that are living in Austria, where they benefit of everything that our social system has to offer, have more children than Turks living in Turkey.
People in those countries that have many children and that are still that poor that it matters, usually dont live long enough to need the support of 8 something children.
So this claim is a socialist lie and nothing else.

TallDave
Posts: 3140
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

they need to think harder about the morality of it in todays overcrowded world.
The world isn't overcrowded. There has never been more food or clean water available.

TallDave
Posts: 3140
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

I think people need to realize a population of 10 billion can do things a population of 1 billion can't. Like what?
Anything costing more than 1 billion can fund but less than what 10 billion can fund. There are also better large scale efficiencies, more people to figure out new ways to make life better for everyone else, larger markets to drive innovation... an order of magnitude is a big deal.
But are we really good enough for global organization? And would a population of 10 billion be easier or harder to organize?
Yes, and probably no different. Liberal democracy is the most ethical and probably final state of human civilization; some of us are just taking longer to get there. Once liberal democracies become rich they are immortal. No liberal democracy with a GDP per capita over 9K has ever failed.
But oil supplies in the US have indeed dropped by 30% since the 1970s.
And whale oil supplies once dropped 80%. Then some smart fellow discovered we could get oil out the ground. Various smart fellows have been finding new souirces of energy since the Inudstrial Revolution began.

Fission fuels will last at least 1,000 years. Fusion should be a reality long before then.
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.
It's a fascist notion whenever the government makes illegal an act that doesn't harm anyone else. As long as you can provide for your offspring, the gov't should stay the hell out of your life. These Malthusian notions are dangerous to freedom.
Last edited by TallDave on Sun Nov 22, 2009 4:56 pm, edited 3 times in total.

TallDave
Posts: 3140
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

Skipjack wrote:
One reason poor countries have larger families is fear. More children increases the chances of the parents having someone to support them in their old age. Improve the standard of living, provide a government sponsored social safety net, and watch the birth rate decline.
Not true! India and especially China are fairly social and rich by now, yet they still have growing populations.
China's population is probably heading for decline.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb- ... owth+china

Most of China is still very, very poor and they will get old before they get rich. That's one reason they aren't really a long-term threat.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Thats why I said "in China you will get lied at".
The official numbers China provides are all not true. Of course according to chinese propaganda, the one child family works and their numbers are stable. This is however not true!
Otherwise how do you explain a 600 million population increase in the last 40 years?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ChinaDemography.svg
They might be poorer in rural areas of China, but they are not THAT poor anymore.
There it is more about having more workers on farms.
Luckily their favoring of boys and abortions are starting to have an effect on their demographics. This might slow down their growth.
Anyway, China is about to become the largest economy in the world. So one can not really speak of "children for support of elderly" anymore.
It is a socialist lie. Thats all.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Otherwise how do you explain a 600 million population increase in the last 40 years?
Increased longevity.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

by 100%?!!
Actually if the one child policy was really working it would be 200%
Nope, the one child policy in china simply is not working.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

Wikipedia also seems to agree.
Even with the one-child policy in place, however, "China still has one million more births than deaths every five weeks."

Post Reply