Infantile Lottery Sterilization

[Deleted member 619]

I am giving myself permission to care about the distant future of humanity. I am looking at the available numbers. I am just trying to say: there are solutions to these seemingly insurmountable problems. If you have other solutions that rely on off-the-shelf technology and does not rely on other unlikely scenarios such as "everybody just starts throwing money at the problem", then I am all ears.

I see, so what you're saying is that, if we agree with your constraints, you're interested in discussing it, but otherwise no?

That's just daft, and that's even accepting your contention that overpopulation is the problem you think it is, which I flatly reject as unsupported bollocks.

Which is not to say , of course, that overpopulation isn't a looming issue, it's just that there are far, far better solutions to that particular problem, at least in the short to middle term, that don't involve ANY technology, extant or yet-to-be invented.

 

[amorrow2]

I was born in 1961 and I remember when people were protesting two things: nuclear weapons and world population. Now I am almost 60 years old and I would like to be able to say to future generations that there are solutions to such world problems, even if we made only limited progress in my lifetime.

I hate to refer to science fiction, but I remember some Star Trek movie where Dr. McCoy mentions that the world somehow solved the world population problem. It is a problem that was recognized many decades ago, but with climate change and other sustainability issues now being talked about because of some evidence that there is a problem, I have a sense of urgency about the matter. I am convinced that these problems are real. I am looking for plans that actually address these problems.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I am giving myself permission to care about the distant future of humanity. I am looking at the available numbers. I am just trying to say: there are solutions to these seemingly insurmountable problems. If you have other solutions that rely on off-the-shelf technology and does not rely on other unlikely scenarios such as "everybody just starts throwing money at the problem", then I am all ears.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I am giving myself permission to

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.

care about the distant future of humanity.

By engaging in horrifying and unprecedented levels of tyranny, forcibly invading peoples' bodily integrity, and erecting a global regime of statist control over people's well-being.

And you call that 'caring'? I don't.

I am looking at the available numbers.

I disagree. Every time people have tried to point you to the available data, such as examples of how education, prospects and availability of contraceptives is already causing a massive decline in growth rates, you ignore that data and keep talking about these authoritarian fantasies.

I am just trying to say: there are solutions to these seemingly insurmountable problems.

And we all obviously agree.

If you have other solutions that rely on off-the-shelf technology and does not rely on other unlikely scenarios such as "everybody just starts throwing money at the problem", then I am all ears.

You're not at all all ears. That's completely the opposite of what's evident in this thread. Every time I talked about other means of achieving a reduction in population that didn't involve engaging in autocracy, you ignored them.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I was born in 1961 and I remember when people were protesting two things: nuclear weapons and world population. Now I am almost 60 years old and I would like to be able to say to future generations that there are solutions to such world problems, even if we made only limited progress in my lifetime.

I hate to refer to science fiction, but I remember some Star Trek movie where Dr. McCoy mentions that the world somehow solved the world population problem. It is a problem that was recognized many decades ago, but with climate change and other sustainability issues now being talked about because of some evidence that there is a problem, I have a sense of urgency about the matter. I am convinced that these problems are real. I am looking for plans that actually address these problems.

No one's challenging your desire to achieve a sustainable world, what people are challenging is your proposed methods. For you, the end justifies the means, but for most people, that's just how barbarism operates.

I want to see a sustainable human population living on Earth into the distant future, and I want the world's ecology not to pay the price for attaining that, but I also don't want to see authoritarian regimes holding the power of life and death over people and micromanaging people as if they possess no intrinsic value or freedoms.

For me, there'd be little point in saving humanity if it were to become unrecognizably inhumane in the process.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I was born in 1961 and I remember when people were protesting two things: nuclear weapons and world population. Now I am almost 60 years old and I would like to be able to say to future generations that there are solutions to such world problems, even if we made only limited progress in my lifetime.

Unfortunately, progress on this isn't going to be made until it's critical, and even then probably not.

I hate to refer to science fiction, but I remember some Star Trek movie where Dr. McCoy mentions that the world somehow solved the world population problem. It is a problem that was recognized many decades ago, but with climate change and other sustainability issues now being talked about because of some evidence that there is a problem, I have a sense of urgency about the matter. I am convinced that these problems are real. I am looking for plans that actually address these problems.

The world population problem was solved by teleportation technology in the STU. Unfortunately, it's going to take something like either that or alien visitors to bring these moronic animals in attire to cooperate. People are selfish, and dumb as all fuck, and there's simply no potential that this is a problem you're going to solve on an internet forum.

 

[Deleted member 42253]

We already have the technology to solve all problems we are facing and yes, "throwing money at the problem" is the solution.
We need to start to pay people to work and solve those problems. Thats it. Nothing to it. As an example ... a country will never ever transition to green energy, if you do not .. you know .. pay people to install solar panels.

And your number of 3 billion is based on a logical fallacy, cause that is assuming, that we continue as we are and make no attempts to change our way of life. Oh and btw. if we assume everyone is living like Americans, the number gets faaaar lower.

 

[Deleted member 42253]

People are selfish, and dumb as all fuck,

Thats why paying them is the only solution.

 

[amorrow2]

I have a different source now. It says that 8 billion is a common figure for sustainable world population. I will think about that some more.

https://www.google.com/search?q=the+current+world+population+is+sustainable

Result:

A 2012 UN report summarised 65 different estimated maximum sustainable population sizes. The most common estimate was eight billion, a little larger than the current population. But the estimates ranged from as few as two billion to, in one study, a staggering 1,024 billion.

Earth - How many people can our planet really support? - BBC

BBC Earth | Home

Welcome to BBC Earth, a place to explore the natural world through awe-inspiring documentaries, podcasts, stories and more.

www.bbc.com

https://na.unep.net/geas/archive/pdfs/geas_jun_12_carrying_capacity.pdf

So the question remains: how do we keep the population from growing beyond 8 billion? I suggest that starting to implement a global two-child limit now on family size might be an effective plan.

Ironically, China just in the past few days relaxed it's population control laws to a three child policy.

Three-child policy: China lifts cap on births in major policy shift

Married Chinese couples may have up to three children, China announced on Monday, in a major shift from the existing limit of two after recent data showed a dramatic decline in births in the world's most populous country.

www.reuters.com

 

[Deleted member 619]

So the question remains: how do we keep the population from growing beyond 8 billion?

Actually, the only question remaining here is why you're still banging on about this, especially given that you have yet to establish overpopulation as the problem you say it is.

All those estimates are based on the current distribution of resources, which is the real problem here.

I suggest that starting to implement a global two-child limit now on family size might be an effective plan.

Ironically, China just in the past few days relaxed it's population control laws to a three child policy.

Three-child policy: China lifts cap on births in major policy shift

Married Chinese couples may have up to three children, China announced on Monday, in a major shift from the existing limit of two after recent data showed a dramatic decline in births in the world's most populous country.

www.reuters.com

Nothing ironic about it. That's because China learned the hard way what we knew all along; that these sorts of measures will fuck us up long before any overpopulation will. China has changed its stance because it was headed for a genetic catastrophe.

Here's a better question: can you actually establish that overpopulation is a problem on the scale you suggest? Do that, and then I'll consider your question as 'remaining'. Until that, you only have assertions that there's a problem, that the problem is of the nature you suggest, and that ridiculous population control measures doomed to reduce genetic diversity with all that entails are in any way the answer (protip: they aren't).

 

[Sparhafoc]

I have a different source now. It says that 8 billion is a common figure for sustainable world population. I will think about that some more.

It just comes down to the numbers you plug in and what you consider to be sustainable, so you can get any number from 1 to 100 billion, and I've seen arguments for both extremes and everything in between.

By and large though, if we took an average standard of global living today and looked at its impact on the environment, the amount of resources required to sustain that, and all the various elements like land use, protection of biodiversity and so on, then the typical figure cited is somewhere between 2 and 2.5 billion - but that average standard of living would undoubtedly be substantively lower than most of us are accustomed to.

 

[amorrow2]

Again I ask: if 2.5 billion is the target, how do you get there from here without the chaos of violence? The only working model that I know of is how we manage the populations of cats and dogs: forced sterilizations. It may even amount to a human rights violation but at least it is orderly. At least it is not chaos.

 

[amorrow2]

Another way to get from 7.5 billion to 2.5 billion would be to have a global one child policy, but it would take over 100 to get there.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Again I ask: if 2.5 billion is the target, how do you get there from here without the chaos of violence?

You don't, not least because your proposal IS violence.

The only working model that I know of is how we manage the populations of cats and dogs: forced sterilizations. It may even amount to a human rights violation but at least it is orderly. At least it is not chaos.

May? It's a complete human rights violation. It is, in fact, the ultimate human rights violation. And if you think thisd is going to happen in an orderly manner, you're more naïve than even the dreck you've presented thus far would suggest. Anybody who tried to impose such a violation on me would find themselves permanently violated. The thing we laughably refer to as civilisation would be ended in a heartbeat. Your proposal is the most violent of them all. Such a proposal could only work under totalitarianism.

if you think otherwise, then you know too little about people to have anything serious to offer.

 

[amorrow2]

I remember seeing on the Internet maybe 20 years ago: "Population control is a great idea. It is just that nobody wants to volunteer for it.'"

 

[Deleted member 42253]

I remember seeing on the Internet maybe 20 years ago: "Population control is a great idea. It is just that nobody wants to volunteer for it.'"

China volunteered ... didnt work out for them.

Here is what we learn from that: Do not put scientists in charge of family planning, they have no clue what they are doing.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I am giving myself permission to care about the distant future of humanity. I am looking at the available numbers. I am just trying to say: there are solutions to these seemingly insurmountable problems. If you have other solutions that rely on off-the-shelf technology and does not rely on other unlikely scenarios such as "everybody just starts throwing money at the problem", then I am all ears.

Global Contraception Programme.

There's a policy that would help control population growth.

If you want to campaign for global population management, start by opposing the "Global Gag Rule":

"The global gag rule forces health care providers to choose between U.S. global health assistance and the ability to counsel and provide clients with an accurate and full range of safe and legal reproductive health options."

Trump reintroduced - and expanded - this Reagan-era policy.

In tandem with that, support the UN/WHO programmes to provide access to contraception throughout both the developing and developed world.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Deleted member 42253]

@Dragan Glas In addition to that, you would have to fight the christian fundamentalists and their abstinence only education, as well as their weird adversity to condoms. The first is screwing the US quite badly, the 2nd the complete continent of Africa.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I remember seeing on the Internet maybe 20 years ago: "Population control is a great idea. It is just that nobody wants to volunteer for it.'"

I remember seeing on the internet, maybe 10 years ago: "Bigfoot is real, and he is always out of focus."

Honestly, what was the point of posting the above? People see lots of things on the internet.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Honestly, what was the point of posting the above?

Autovocophilia.