ForumsWEPRWhat would be the best way to unpopulate the earth

290 32884
thecode11
offline
thecode11
242 posts
505

Any answers hopefully humane and by unpopulate i mean lower human populations.

  • 290 Replies
HahiHa
online
HahiHa
6,950 posts
21,265

What's wrong with my ideas? Tell me at least.

Didn't I already hint at it? Parents are already accepting a financial burden when getting children without unfair suppression. I am against the criminalisation or penalisation of getting children. And there are other things to do first, like making birth control affordable to everyone including the poor, or telling those ultra-religious that god may not want them to swarm earth.

tl;dr: I know we must do something, just not this, now. We theoretically have the capacity to feed most humans on earth, we just consume like idiots and let tons of food go to waste while others are starving.
MacII
offline
MacII
1,348 posts
1,395

I honestly haven't read much of anything that went before, but regarding this notion that no matter which way you look at it, overpopulation is some impending doom hanging over us all, here's some interesting reading material I picked up on the web:

Climate Change and 'Overpopulation.' Some reflections, The Corner House, Dec. 2009, http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/resource/climate-change-and-overpopulation

The Corner House, Resources: overpopulation, http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/resources/results/overpopulation

Why Climate Change Malthusians Are Wrong. On Population, James Faris, Dec. 2009, http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/12/10/on-population/

George Monbiot, The Population Myth, Sept. 2009, http://www.monbiot.com/2009/09/29/the-population-myth/

George Monbiot And The Persistence Of The Population Myth, Michael Barker, Nov. 2009, http://www.swans.com/library/art15/barker34.html .


Happy reading
MacII
offline
MacII
1,348 posts
1,395

Woops, and there broke the links. Let's try that again, if they break again, I guess I'll leave it to a kind mod or forum dweller to fix:

Climate Change and 'Overpopulation.' Some reflections, The Corner House, Dec. 2009, http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/resource/climate-change-and-overpopulation .

The Corner House, Resources: overpopulation, http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/resources/results/overpopulation .

Why Climate Change Malthusians Are Wrong. On Population, James Faris, Dec. 2009, http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/12/10/on-population/ .

George Monbiot, The Population Myth, Sept. 2009, http://www.monbiot.com/2009/09/29/the-population-myth/ .

George Monbiot And The Persistence Of The Population Myth, Michael Barker, Nov. 2009, http://www.swans.com/library/art15/barker34.html .

darkblueoc
offline
darkblueoc
31 posts
245

On a different fourm website, one person asked if homosexuality was evolution's way of decreasing the population...what are your guy's thoughts on it?

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
4,560

On a different fourm website, one person asked if homosexuality was evolution's way of decreasing the population...what are your guy's thoughts on it?

it would be doing a poor job.
but on a serious note. i can only laugh at the idea.
HahiHa
online
HahiHa
6,950 posts
21,265

On a different fourm website, one person asked if homosexuality was evolution's way of decreasing the population...what are your guy's thoughts on it?

There are a few things not working with that notion...

Evolution is not a planned process. Something doesn't happen in order to attain a certain state.

If homosexuality would be evolving, that would mean there's a selective pressure towards it. Problem is, the genealogic line ends at homosexual individuals (they don't produce offsprings), so any genetic influence cannot be the case (and I'm assuming here their influence on the survival of family members is low; furthermore family members might not even carry any relevant genes).

But anyway, homosexuality has always been around, not only in humans but also in many animal species. And yet we grow and grow. So as partydevil said, it would be doing a poor job :P
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
4,560

i was think a bit. and i was wondering if others could find a other solution for this hypothetical question.

if i was evolution itself (or the god that controls it. w/e you want) and i wanted and could make a choice of how i wanted the human population to decrease. then what would i change to make that happen?

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,540 posts
2,210

On a different fourm website, one person asked if homosexuality was evolution's way of decreasing the population...what are your guy's thoughts on it?


Homosexuality doesn't equate to infertility. Though even if we do say that homosexuals just don't reproduce this could still be a net benefit to increase the populations as we know have members of the group capable of providing needed services for those who are reproducing. Such as functioning as surrogate care givers to the offspring due to the parent not being around, either temporarily or permanently.
Wyrzen
offline
Wyrzen
326 posts
1,000

Best way to depopulate would be to reintroduce smallpox.

Humane? Not at all.

A thought? Yes it is.

McSwagga
offline
McSwagga
53 posts
645

make a bad infection that turns people to zombies and they will do the rest

LazyOne
offline
LazyOne
167 posts
520

Best way to depopulate would be to reintroduce smallpox.

Humane? Not at all.

A thought? Yes it is.

I think you need to look up the definition of "best".

I hate threads with 1 sentence OPs who leave the reader to figure the real topic out. There are multiple scenarios where depopulation is necessary.

1) Third world countries where people lead a short life of famine and suffering.
My suggestion: an extremely large portion of the money raised by charity doesn't reach the target audience. Some goes to transport, but most of it goes to "gifts" to already wealthy people who have power in the country. Try to improve that first. You could then offer help in exchange for a sterilisation of the woman.

2) First world countries where the economy suffers because people keep growing older. Older people = more money goes to retirements. Also, the population stagnates so basically you have less working people to generate money for more elderly people who use money.
My suggestion: raise retirement age.

A depopulation is not always the solution.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
4,560

raise retirement age.

it works to a certain amount. at some point the elderly people will keep the jobs that are needed for younger people to give their working life a start.
if you want to raise retirement age then you will need to the jobs for it. if not then it wont work.

also is this not depopulating... in the case of to much elderly people i would say to just give less medical support. dont give a 89 year old a new hip or dont put people on emergency life support anymore after they are 75/80 for example. people get older because we keep them alive. just let them die, it's natural..

offer help in exchange for a sterilisation of the woman.

"hey, you. sterilize yourself, then we will help you."
i dont think many people want your help. and it certainly isn't going to help emancipation.
LazyOne
offline
LazyOne
167 posts
520

dont give a 89 year old a new hip or dont put people on emergency life support anymore after they are 75/80 for example. people get older because we keep them alive. just let them die, it's natural..

What the hell?

"Hi, I'm 89, I need medical support."
-"Heyyy, pal! I'm a doctor! Sorry, the law forbids me from helping you since you are older than 75. Even though you have worked and paid taxes for the majority of your time on earth, you don't deserve help because you're too old! Have fun!"

"hey, you. sterilize yourself, then we will help you."
i dont think many people want your help. and it certainly isn't going to help emancipat


First of all I don't see how sterilisation could negatively affect emancipation and sterilisation. I thought anticonception was an accomplishment of emancipation?

Second, believe me, when people are in need for medical help/food/water/shelter, they'll be more than happy to give up their fertility for that.
Salvidian
offline
Salvidian
4,229 posts
2,255

Interesting tidbit I learned from my uncle (pertains to the conversation):

In 1935 the average life expectancy was about 62. 1935 was the year social security was passed. The current life expectancy is about 79*. That's a whole 17 year difference. Guess what? I'm 17, so that would be like repeating my entire life over again. A lot of people rely solely on SS, and when it was passed, it was for the lucky few who made it to 65. Now a large majority of people are living past 65, and thus more money is being taken out of SS.

LazyOne
offline
LazyOne
167 posts
520

In 1935 the average life expectancy was about 62. 1935 was the year social security was passed. The current life expectancy is about 79*. That's a whole 17 year difference. Guess what? I'm 17, so that would be like repeating my entire life over again. A lot of people rely solely on SS, and when it was passed, it was for the lucky few who made it to 65. Now a large majority of people are living past 65, and thus more money is being taken out of SS.


Yes, indeed, more money is spent on people's health than before, you have that correct. Maybe the US should stop spending 700 billion a year on their military if it worries about tax money so much.

Also, life expectancy depends on where you live.
Showing 166-180 of 290