Do we need a sudden, massive population drop?

[LeadPaintSandwich]

this guy has some interesting data concerning global population growth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTznEIZRkLg&videos=yDj_kaFZIVA

i say we need a slow and steady population drop, coupled with an economy that doesn't depend on exponential growth to function. but that seems impossible. the brewing global economic crisis will make the decision for us. eventually the system will hit a wall and the wars will start. i hope i'm wrong though.

 

[borrofburi]

this guy has some interesting data concerning global population growth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTznEIZRkLg&videos=yDj_kaFZIVA

i say we need a slow and steady population drop, coupled with an economy that doesn't depend on exponential growth to function. but that seems impossible. the brewing global economic crisis will make the decision for us. eventually the system will hit a wall and the wars will start. i hope i'm wrong though.

I'd rather it doesn't... I'd rather we decide to do something else instead, because given the two realities, I prefer the slightly annoying one of having less children to the one in which we have a lot more people dying.

 

[LeadPaintSandwich]

I'd rather it doesn't... I'd rather we decide to do something else instead, because given the two realities, I prefer the slightly annoying one of having less children to the one in which we have a lot more people dying.

it would be great if more people saw it as: having irresponsible number of kids = unsustainable global resource depletion

but a lot of people don't see it that way, or they just don't care. my old philosophy teacher has 11 kids (with him and his wife as biological father and mother). he says that overpopulation is irrelevant because there was no way for him to personally judge his effects on the planet based on the number of kids he has. he also says he can provide for them monetarily so in his mind he has the right to have that many.

a law and a set number of legal amount of kids would have to be set, and we can only imagine the political debate surrounding that.

i can already see weirdos like glen beck red faced screaming "you see?! NEW WORLD ORDAR!!!11!"

 

[nemesiss]

in the west we will have a population drop pretty soon.
the kids that were born after WW2 (better known as the baby boomers) make up quite a large portion of the country ( about 20-30%) and them reaching the age of 70 means they wont last for long....

 

[borrofburi]

in the west we will have a population drop pretty soon.
the kids that were born after WW2 (better known as the baby boomers) make up quite a large portion of the country ( about 20-30%) and them reaching the age of 70 means they wont last for long....

The problem is, that the birth rate still remains above the replenishment rate.

 

[bemanos]

Ive been pondering this for about as long as Ive been aware of its inevitability. Several reasons why this is actually somewhat "attractive" include food scarcity, overpopulation, the over production of manufactured goods that, in the process of making them, cause environmental harm (human and nonhuman), and the violence that acompanies the previous three. If certain events occur that would push this into a reality, and to combat them would be ultimately futile, would it make more sense to just let it happen versus putting energy and money into something that is just going to happen anyway with the added benefit of reducing some of the pressures overpopulation places on us? Bear in mind, Im not referring to genocide but natural disasters here.

I like to think of forest fires as a crude example of why this might/should happen, as, despite the fact that the whole forest burns to the ground, hibernating seeds and organisms that were once struggling to compete now have the opportunity to increase their presence and quality. Its a disaster, but not a total one, and in some cases is necessary for the natural cycle.

Just a thought. Mind I dont fantasize all day about millions to billions of people dying horrifically, but my lack of unconditional human empathy allows me to see even the good in massive scale disasters. Ill elaborate a little more, but for now I wanted to get the idea down.

i believe that if we want as a race to survive for a long time a sudden , massive population drop is mandatory. It is very hard for a race to consist of billions of population and manage to progress(in science etc)

 

[Skillbus]

Supposing that our population grows to the limit the Earth can sustain and people are not willing to use birth control, why would killing "extra" people be any better than just letting them starve?

Letting the population of humans expand indefinitely would deplete resources, but that would only screw over potential people who would not yet exist, and therefore in my opinion would not have the same moral importance as people in the (hypothetical) present.

 

[Ilikemustard]

A sudden drop in population is not only required for us to continue living in a stable society, it is required to accelerate evolution. I read once that about 100,000 years ago the human species was on the brink of extinction, with around only a few thousand left. Some natural crisis was occurring, and because of this natural selection was put into hyperdrive, with only the greatest minds of our species surviving.

Now look at the current population. There is a VERY obvious gap between the most intelligent and the least intelligent. Could you imagine if all the people on the stupid end of the spectrum suddenly died out?

 

[Prolescum]

Now look at the current population. There is a VERY obvious gap between the most intelligent and the least intelligent. Could you imagine if all the people on the stupid end of the spectrum suddenly died out?

Yes, we'd have no more cowardly fuckwits suggesting we get rid of people based on some ridiculous, fatuous idea of intelligence to which said idiots rarely fit into themselves. It would be a heaven on Earth.

 

[Ilikemustard]

Now look at the current population. There is a VERY obvious gap between the most intelligent and the least intelligent. Could you imagine if all the people on the stupid end of the spectrum suddenly died out?

Yes, we'd have no more cowardly fuckwits suggesting we get rid of people based on some ridiculous, fatuous idea of intelligence to which said idiots rarely fit into themselves. It would be a heaven on Earth.

This has nothing to do with corwardice and everything to with observation you stupid fuck. And I KNOW that I don't fit into the 'stupid' spectrum because I was constantly at the top of my classes at highschool and am now attending university. The stupid spectrum encompasses those idiots you knew who had no interest in learning, and were destined to work at McDonalds for the rest of their life, or living on welfare. There are even large masses of them congregating in the ghettos.

I don't care how morally corrupt you think the idea is, because this is not about morals, it is about survival of the fittest. My idea is logically superior to anything you have to offer, so please try and come up with an argument that isn't based on morals.


Edit: And where did I even suggest we 'get rid of' the stupid people? I never even argued for a mass genocide, did I? You're arguing against a point I never even made you fucking moron.

 

[Prolescum]

This has nothing to do with corwardice and everything to with observation you stupid fuck.

Charming. I was referring to people who think that uneducated people are a sub-class unworthy of life based upon some ludicrous idea that just being educated gives you the right to determine the worth of another. Do you fit into that category?

And I KNOW that I don't fit into the 'stupid' spectrum

Evidence is not on your side here.

because I was constantly at the top of my classes at highschool and am now attending university. The stupid spectrum encompasses those idiots you knew who had no interest in learning, and were destined to work at McDonalds for the rest of their life, or living on welfare. There are even large masses of them congregating in the ghettos.

That you don't understand the causes of low self esteem nor the relation of poverty to prospects troubles me. What exactly are they teaching these days?

I don't care how morally corrupt you think the idea is, because this is not about morals, it is about survival of the fittest.

Lulz.

My idea is logically superior to anything you have to offer, so please try and come up with an argument that isn't based on morals.

I don't need to, you destroyed yours with your own ignorance, which coupled with the irony that you think you're being clever, this is one fantastic contribution to mankind you're making here. Well done to your university. Nothing else is required of me.

Edit: And where did I even suggest we 'get rid of' the stupid people?

As I said, I didn't direct it toward you but people with that attitude in general. You should double check these things.

I never even argued for a mass genocide, did I?

I don't recall mentioning genocide at all in that post.

You're arguing against a point I never even made you fucking moron.

As are you, you nincompoop.

Edit: replaced the word it with the word yours.

 

[creativesoul]

Mustard wrote:

The stupid spectrum encompasses those idiots you knew who had no interest in learning, and were destined to work at McDonalds for the rest of their life, or living on welfare. There are even large masses of them congregating in the ghettos.

Wow! :facepalm:

Working at McDonald's equates to being 'stupid'? Applying for and receiving government assistance equates to being stupid?Living in a low income housing district equates to being stupid?

I don't care how morally corrupt you think the idea is, because this is not about morals, it is about survival of the fittest. My idea is logically superior to anything you have to offer, so please try and come up with an argument that isn't based on morals.

Survival of the 'fittest', huh? Do you know what that entails, or are you using the phrase in some personal manner? Are you aware of the number of professional American football players, both current and retired that have come from those aforementioned 'stupid' type of environments? How do you think that you would 'stack up' to people like that in a TRUE survival of the fittest? Winner take all?

You're an idiot.

 

[Andiferous]

No point in repeated use of the F word in personal attacks. It's a bit contradictory to the point of the thread, anyway.

 

[creamcheese]

I'm not sure why people are arguing over methods of population control, and whether or not we need them... It will eventually sort itself out, whether we as a species choose to be proactive about it or not. If we fail to find resources (or distribute them adequately) population will reach a peak. How our population eventually stabilizes or collapses is what we should worry about.

This may also depends on the nature of the universe. In an expanding or infinite universe, we might conceivably never run out of resources, provided we developed the means to access them. In a universe that is not infinite or one that may collapse eventually, we won't be able to expand forever no matter what we do. Of course then the question of what a universe is, and the possibility of other universes starts to hurt my head.

If we assume that in the near future, say the next few thousand years, that humans do not colonize anywhere but earth or at least cannot ship people away from earth fast enough to matter... then we have a way of figuring out the maximum population possible. Take all of the energy that is accessible from earth (the sun, and internal heating) and divide by the amount of energy each person requires. This assumes we are a closed system, which we are not, and that all available energy goes towards sustaining human life.. and a host of other assumptions, but will give you an upper limit anyway. Of course, this is assuming that we understand the way the universe works for the most part, and that future discoveries will only increase our efficiency and not actually increase our total accessible energy. And it's not like the sun and geothermal will last forever... I think I am rambling.

Anyway, for the most part, people refuse to confront issues of overpopulation, or almost any topic involving reproduction... :roll: But one way or another it will be decided, through war, voluntary control, starvation, disease, etc. Voluntary control seems the best option, seeing as we could choose how it was done, but such things (birth control, sterilization, etc) are generally considered taboo. A lot of people seem to have issue with things like sterilization and involuntary birth control, but I don't see much alternative. People are genetically predisposed to reproduce! Voluntary measures will probably never work. Then the issues arises of who gets to decide who is allowed to have children? People seem to think that such forced measures are inherently evil, but they are far preferable to having mother nature choose an option for us!

If you had to ask me to vote for the method I thought would work the best, it would be forced sterilization. It avoids the problems of killing mass numbers of people, and lets them still enjoy sex. This might be done in a random fashion, and/or we might set some standards. It might seem like a gross violation of individual liberties, but these liberties are human constructs and subject to change. Since there are no objective standards of which humans are genetically superior (or at least, none that people would not object to), a random sterilization program seems sensible. Simply vary the numbers of sterilized people to achieve desired population.

 

[Prolescum]

No point in repeated use of the F word in personal attacks. It's a bit contradictory to the point of the thread, anyway.

:lol:

Honestly, I don't mind being called a fucking moron by someone who is clearly my intellectual superior. I probably deserve it too, pointless little prole scum that I am.

 

[Ilikemustard]

Charming. I was referring to people who think that uneducated people are a sub-class unworthy of life based upon some ludicrous idea that just being educated gives you the right to determine the worth of another. Do you fit into that category?

No less charming than your post was to mine. Uneducated people are uneducated mostly because they choose to remain uneducated. Hence when I said "idiots that have no interest in learning". I guarantee you that if someone is intelligent and has motivation to learn, they will learn and become educated.

Evidence is not on your side here.

Worthless statement that makes no argument.

That you don't understand the causes of low self esteem nor the relation of poverty to prospects troubles me. What exactly are they teaching these days?

Do you realise how many successful people there are living today that came from a diminished background, because they had a will to learn? Do you realise how many people came from a wealthy background, that are now worthless because they had no will to learn? And your statement about what people are teaching is worthless as it's clearly being facetious.

Lulz.

Worthless. Do you actually think you're putting up a strong argument?

I don't need to, you destroyed yours with your own ignorance, which coupled with the irony that you think you're being clever, this is one fantastic contribution to mankind you're making here. Well done to your university. Nothing else is required of me.

Really, how? It's difficult to make a rebuttal to your post when you are doing nothing but spouting worthless crap. Watch me do the same: Your argument is null and void because you're ignorant. That was hard.

As I said, I didn't direct it toward you but people with that attitude in general. You should double check these things.

You quoted me directly and made the argument. If you think you didn't direct it at me then you need a lesson in communication skills.

I don't recall mentioning genocide at all in that post.

"suggesting we get rid of people"
A.k.a killing people a.k.a genocide you idiot.

As are you, you nincompoop.

Really, which point? Notice how I made it clear which point you made up that you thought I made. Notice how you didn't. You really need to learn how to debate.

 

[Ilikemustard]

Wow! :facepalm:

Working at McDonald's equates to being 'stupid'? Applying for and receiving government assistance equates to being stupid?Living in a low income housing district equates to being stupid?

Notice how I said "people that are destined to work at McDonalds for the REST of their life"? I didn't say that someone who has a part time job at McDonalds to make money while they attend high school or university equates to being an idiot. Applying for government assistance DOES equate to being an idiot when you have no education and no job. Living in a low housing district DOES equate to being stupid in most cases because it implies that the people living there are too stupid to get a higher paying job.

Survival of the 'fittest', huh? Do you know what that entails, or are you using the phrase in some personal manner? Are you aware of the number of professional American football players, both current and retired that have come from those aforementioned 'stupid' type of environments? How do you think that you would 'stack up' to people like that in a TRUE survival of the fittest? Winner take all?

You're an idiot.

You're taking this out of context. I would probably lose to a professional footballer in a 'survival of the fittest match', if we were living 50,000 years ago. This is the modern era. Brain is worth more than brawn now.

You're an idiot.

 

[Ilikemustard]

No point in repeated use of the F word in personal attacks. It's a bit contradictory to the point of the thread, anyway.

Sorry, but it was used against me first.

 

[Prolescum]

:lol:

Charming. I was referring to people who think that uneducated people are a sub-class unworthy of life based upon some ludicrous idea that just being educated gives you the right to determine the worth of another. Do you fit into that category?

No less charming than your post was to mine. Uneducated people are uneducated mostly because they choose to remain uneducated.

Evidence for this is where? On what basis did you make this determination? Your 'observations'? Anecdote is not evidence, mate.

Hence when I said "idiots that have no interest in learning".

:lol:

Idiots, by definition, cannot learn much. You really have a problem with your understanding of English; it's quite endearing, really. This is a common factor in your posts and is noted for future exchanges. I will accommodate you somewhat.

I guarantee you that if someone is intelligent and has motivation to learn, they will learn and become educated.

If someone is determined to eat chocolate, and they have the motivation to earn money to buy chocolate, they will eat chocolate.

Evidence is not on your side here.

Worthless statement that makes no argument.

True, however, at this point it still stands. Carry on trying to convince me otherwise, though.

That you don't understand the causes of low self esteem nor the relation of poverty to prospects troubles me. What exactly are they teaching these days?

Do you realise how many successful people there are living today that came from a diminished background, because they had a will to learn? Do you realise how many people came from a wealthy background, that are now worthless because they had no will to learn? And your statement about what people are teaching is worthless as it's clearly being facetious.

And you've read this study where? I'd love to read it myself.

Lulz.

Worthless. Do you actually think you're putting up a strong argument?

No, I was giving a clear indication of how I view your 'argument'.

I don't need to, you destroyed yours with your own ignorance, which coupled with the irony that you think you're being clever, this is one fantastic contribution to mankind you're making here. Well done to your university. Nothing else is required of me.

Really, how? It's difficult to make a rebuttal to your post when you are doing nothing but spouting worthless crap. Watch me do the same: Your argument is null and void because you're ignorant. That was hard.

You don't know what ignorance is, do you? Clever people can be ignorant too :lol:

As I said, I didn't direct it toward you but people with that attitude in general. You should double check these things.

You quoted me directly and made the argument. If you think you didn't direct it at me then you need a lesson in communication skills.

I was talking to you, yes, the comment itself was directed generally toward those with that attitude, as the actual words suggest. It seems this poor English theme is going to be a hindrance to further discussion between us. Please try to make an effort to step up a level, and I promise I will be a little more patient with you.

I don't recall mentioning genocide at all in that post.

"suggesting we get rid of people"
A.k.a killing people a.k.a genocide you idiot.

That's two steps you made all on your own. Don't apply your baggage to my lexicon, to coin a phrase.

As are you, you nincompoop.

Really, which point? Notice how I made it clear which point you made up that you thought I made. Notice how you didn't. You really need to learn how to debate.

Heh, you'll pick it up eventually, I'm sure. This isn't a debate, it's a conversation. I wouldn't actually debate with you because I don't think your ego likes to be bruised, as evidenced in your excessively emotional retorts.


The thread is now drifting inexorably toward closure...

 

[Ilikemustard]

Evidence for this is where? On what basis did you make this determination? Your 'observations'? Anecdote is not evidence, mate.

Written by Dr Gottfredson, PhD in Sociology:

"[IQ correlates] most strongly with education and least with income."
"In statistical terms, differences in rearing environments have no main effect on adult intelligence."

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2010inequality.pdf

Hence when I said "idiots that have no interest in learning".

Idiots, by definition, cannot learn much. You really have a problem with your understanding of English; it's quite endearing, really. This is a common factor in your posts and is noted for future exchanges. I will accommodate you somewhat.

I said "idiots that have no interest in learning", not "idiots that cannot learn much". Idiots can have an interest in learning, though it often proves fruitless, which is why most idiots don't have an interest in learning.

I guarantee you that if someone is intelligent and has motivation to learn, they will learn and become educated.

If someone is determined to eat chocolate, and they have the motivation to earn money to buy chocolate, they will eat chocolate.

Not if they don't have the intelligence to acquire a job that pays enough to afford chocolate. Though chocolate isn't exactly an expensive resource...

Do you realise how many successful people there are living today that came from a diminished background, because they had a will to learn? Do you realise how many people came from a wealthy background, that are now worthless because they had no will to learn? And your statement about what people are teaching is worthless as it's clearly being facetious.

And you've read this study where? I'd love to read it myself.

A simple google search gave me this.
http://www.intelligenius.net/rich-people-who-were-born-poor/

You don't know what ignorance is, do you? Clever people can be ignorant too :lol:

Ok. You still haven't specified what I'm ignorant of.

I was talking to you, yes, the comment itself was directed generally toward those with that attitude, as the actual words suggest. It seems this poor English theme is going to be a hindrance to further discussion between us. Please try to make an effort to step up a level, and I promise I will be a little more patient with you.

My English is fine.

"suggesting we get rid of people"
A.k.a killing people a.k.a genocide you idiot.

That's two steps you made all on your own. Don't apply your baggage to my lexicon, to coin a phrase.

Ok, let me explain this to you without the word genocide. You implied that I wanted to kill stupid people, when I never made any such remark.

Let me ask you a question, do you think people with a mental disability should be kept alive? They contribute nothing to society, and in fact drain society's resources because special programs need to be set up to accommodate them. The only reason they are kept alive is because people whine about how it's immoral to get rid of them. But what is their purpose?