The overpopulated earth

Discussion in 'Politics' started by hydrosRheaven, Sep 20, 2009.

  1. #1 hydrosRheaven, Sep 20, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2009
    If we don't halt population growth with justice and compassion, it will be done for us by nature, brutally and without pity - and will leave a ravaged world.
    Nobel Laureate Dr. Henry W. Kendall

    We can not wait until we have a problem like China to start discussing serious legislature to reduce US and world populations.

    I would be for a variety of laws:

    -The first change I would make would be through education, and birth control. If you are on welfare you should be on birth control.
    -Next, make a regressive tax on the amount of kids you have verses supporting the decision to have more babies, with more money.
    -I would even support limiting the number of children a person is allowed to have, but specifically those who can not afford to.
    -Incentives on adopting children should be large. We are providing a home to an orphan, and in many cases avoiding another person that family would have birthed instead of adopting a baby already on the planet.

    I am not talking about fining the poor. We need to increase the accessibility of affordable birth control so that those on welfare can prevent more children. You ignored the suggestion of increasing incentives to adopt instead of birth.
    I will explain the welfare reform that is needed: $=X dollars

    Currently- more kids=more $$$$
    My suggestion- 1 dependent =$
    2 dependents = $$
    3 dependents=$$$
    4 dependents=$$
    5 dependents=$ The amount of aid you will get, will go down leaving you with more personal accountability for your actions.

    I post this thread as a think tank for both ideas/legislation that should be placed now, and for thoughts about what the future will hold when we are forced to deal with the overpopulated earth.

    What do you think is possible, or necessary?
  2. We have caused the problem ourselves so it is up to us to us to resolve it.
    But it is in mans nature to grow and expand. The fact we have expanded so much is a sign of our sucess..
    I think the west has caused a lot of the problems in our "throw money at the problem attitude".
    Parts of Africa are totally reliant on Aid. Man was not meant to live in large numbers in some of the more hostile enviroments on earth. It is impossible to survive in these places without aid.
    Thats the problem though. Do you let these people die on TV in front of you or do you quick fix the problem with charity only for the problem to continue and continue..

    I think we need a cull...
    So if you want to do something for the world..
    Self Sacrifice..;)
  3. Yes, living in the more extreme environments with technology increase over population, but i don't believe it is the major problem. The major problem is the rate at which we are exponentially expanding. To fix this you don't have to let people die, or kill yourself.

    You can also prevent someone from being born. We need to increase birth control use, and decrease the birth rate. I think we should pass legislation to do both, before we are another China, do you?
  4. Come on...we all know who has most of the children...the minorities and the worlds poor. How's it going to look when all these programs are aimed at blacks/browns? The cries of racism can be heard already. White people don't have enough children to replace their numbers...their population is going down... Who is responsible for the overpopulation? I'll give you one guess... The same ones responsible for most of our other problems too. Education or the lack of it. Crime... The list goes on... But we can't talk about it...
  5. Oh yes, going green, eugenics smokescreen. whoever says they are too many people seriously needs to realize the lies they are being fed, because there is always someone above them with a higher agenda to depopulate. The earth can support billions more without trouble. In fact everyone could fit inside australia with 1 acre, its all rubbish to start culling off the masses as they say to make way for a controlled Fabian society.
  6. To OP: If you lost your job, (which is very likely in the coming years) and have to settle for welfare, would you go on birthcontrol, and the restrictions you wish to impose on others?
  7. #7 hydrosRheaven, Sep 21, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 21, 2009
    Billions of people in one acre? No wonder you are in disbelief of overpopulation.

    I believe in doing what it takes to stop things like the Octomom. Someone needs to let that women know its a vagina and not a clown car. Since she is on welfare, I wouldn't oppose the government be the one to do it.

    As far as restrictions I'm suggesting give less tax breaks for each kid you have after 2 or so. I'm suggesting that people on welfare be given birth control the pill for women and condoms for guys. I don't believe that those things are too much to ask, especially if tax payers have to help support your kids.

    To answer your question I would be willing to accept said restrictions, and would even agree to a vasectomy if I was on welfare and still having kids.
  8. I think he meant that everyone could live in Australia with one acre.
  9. #9 letsgetPOD, Sep 21, 2009
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2009
    It comes down to this, you cannot punish the collective for the crimes of the few. You will keep losing freedom after freedom. Throughout history that is how countries spiraled into totalitarianism. Most people in the US are on track with their lives and not having too many children that they can't afford. Its a fine balance you have to strike, when you go about regulating and legislating, sadly it always happens. With the bottom feeders something needs to be done, but most likely they will punish everybody for their carelessness, which we cannot let happen, and when the govt has the right to sterilze or impose birth control, what happens when you get laid off?
  10. I do not think that's accurate. What about oceanic fish populations? Haven't they gone down something like 50% since 1950? What about freshwater supplies? Perhaps if we lived in a world with different technology (as well as a much decreased appetite for meat) the Earth could support more people easily but now... I'm not so sure.

    What the OP is proposing isn't forced sterilization or some other authoritarian shit like that; it's about providing incentives to people to copulate within reason. Hell, if the government took a simple step and provided free male and female birth control in welfare offices I feel that would guarantee a reduction in the costs of welfare - less kids to support.

    Adoption, too, should be greatly encouraged. Tax breaks for those who adopt or something, I don't know...
  11. It really wouldn't matter which he meant they are both false.
    There is no balance. There is exponential growth.

    Each year there are approximately 4 million births in the U.S. and 2.4 million deaths.The growth due to natural increase (total births minus deaths) is therefore 1.6 million per year. Yet according to the Census Bureau's decennial census, U.S. population is growing by approximately 3.3 million per year.

    Source- U.S. birth rates, population growth, and the environment - SUSPS
  12. What the fuck is wrong with you? What kind of fascist control freak are you anyway? You want THE GOVERNMENT to enforce population reduction programs? What the hell?!?! You are seriously fucked in the head if you think this is a good idea. I guess Hitler and Stalin were doing the world a favor by killing all of those people, huh?
  13. #13 hydrosRheaven, Sep 21, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 21, 2009
    Ad hominen and straw man all in the same post, thank you for that excellent rebuttal Kingmonkey!

    For the record, I have not nor will I advocate killing people to meet this goal. Would you like to chime in on what you think will end this exponential population growth? We certainly can not maintain this kind of growth, and there are no signs of it stopping in the future.
    Correct. I am talking about replacing the incentives that lead to higher population with incentives to keep our population small.

    You hit the nail on the head with the added benefit for the US tax payer. I would much rather spend money to provide birth control now, instead of paying for more kids later. Large tax breaks for parents that adopt would be great! That would work well becuase tax write offs are most appealing to those that can afford more kids.

    I believe the only reason this isn't more openly debated in congress is the taboo nature around population control.
  14. I think humans are going to surprise themselves with their own intelligence. Overpopulation is becoming a problem fast, but I don't think it is going to beat technology. In the past it was thought that we would overpopulate well before now but they just didn't know what technology would do for our agriculture. I think and hope that something similar is going to happen now.
  15. You don't actually think that would ever happen, do you? Having babbies is a sacred right handed down by God hisself!
  16. A lot of people are going to die, and there's nothing we can do about it, really.

    With the elimination of passive eugenics, our leaders will either force it upon us, or nature will take care of it in one fell swoop.

    Simple as that.
  17. I agree. I think we could do it a less painfully through legislation, then waiting for nature to take care of it. At some point we will not have that luxury.
  18. What are you talking about? All I did was ask if you were serious. If you are then you are a control freak if you really think government has the right or the obligation to "control" human populations.

    Populations rise and fall on their own. Studies have shown that the population of earth will reach a certain point and naturally decline. If you look around many industrialized nations are seeing a decrease in the size of their populations. It has been suggested that as a nation develops people begin having fewer and fewer children. This seems to hold true since nearly all developed nations are currently experiencing population declines. The earth is hardly "overpopulated" in my opinion. I think the biggest culprit in believing there are too many of us are national borders and urban areas.

    Anyway, none of this really matters since you don't have the right to dictate how many kids someone can have. And to believe that society or government or whatever excuse you want to use does have that authority is ignorant and tyrannical.
  19. This is because humans beleive were special. If we could kill eachother this wouldn't be a problem. Animals kill for food, mates etc why can't we?

    There's no beetle population problem, they fix their shit out with some good old mortal kombat style shit right there man...shit.
  20. The USA specifically is one of those developed nations, and our population is increasing more and more every year. What in your opinion would be too many people then? When nature decides we die? If nature does it it will be a lot uglier then if congress does IMO.

    If we were to cut our population we would see improvements in quality of life that no amount of reform could provide.

    That is absolutely true. humans do not self regulate there population. Something will have to be done, but it seems most people are reluctant to seriously consider this.

Share This Page