ForumsWEPRWhat would be the best way to unpopulate the earth

255 93790
thecode11
offline
thecode11
239 posts
Nomad

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

  • 255 Replies
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

You one of those who think we're rotting ourselves out by our low birth rates? Only situations I hear this argument is when Islampohobic people use it to argue in favour of a creeping "Muslim invasion" due to having more children.


Yes I do. An aging population with a birth rate less than 2.1 is a disaster recipe in the making. This makes economic growth unsustainable in the long run, with an increasingly small labour pool, but with an increasingly large elderly population to support, which coupled with the fact that many of Europe's nations have generous pension schemes, would make the future look very bleak.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,552 posts
Jester

Yes I do. An aging population with a birth rate less than 2.1 is a disaster recipe in the making.


Overpopulation is a larger disaster recipe in the making. We cannot forever sustain a growth in numbers, basic ecology takes over eventually. Any organism that outgrows its niche suffers a decline in numbers due to lack of food, whether this is from trying to feed every member at once, or a select few hoarding the resources.

This makes economic growth unsustainable in the long run, with an increasingly small labour pool, but with an increasingly large elderly population to support,


Then why not have the elderly work, or at least encourage them to? I don't mean backbreaking physical work or "full hours." Or even pushing the retirement age back somewhat.

which coupled with the fact that many of Europe's nations have generous pension schemes, would make the future look very bleak.


The future already looks bleak. Though the difference in a sudden drop in the labor pool would be more immediate, overpopulation to the point where we're beyond what is capable of supporting centuries from now is more dire.

The longer we do not address this problem, the worse it grows. Population growth occurs at exponential rates and with our increased medical technology, people aren't dying as young on average.

When it comes down to it, there's only two ways that the population count drops. Either people die, or people stop having as many babies. One of those two is going to happen, eventually.

While we may not be overpopulated yet, we're getting there quickly.
Masterforger
offline
Masterforger
1,824 posts
Peasant

Get the boffins to develop a disease that would consume the world. And kill the scientists that developed cures.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

This makes economic growth unsustainable in the long run,

Sorry for the bad language, but I sh** on economic growth. That focus on growth is a cancer to the world; see the situation in America. What we need is stability.

I'm not saying our system is perfect; far from it. There are few things we'd need to adapt, like fighting the increasing living costs, and rising the salaries (parts of the reason why some have less children).
On the other side, we're not that bad in a shape like France, where they stop working like five years earlier than everywhere else in Europe.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester

but I sh** on economic growth.


look if everyone has only 1 child. then that 1 child has to make money for 3 people when his parents are retired.
if it happens on a large scale it means that it is impossible for the working people to make enough money to sustain the entire population.

if everyone has 2 children then they have to work for 2 people when their parents are retired.
if it happens on a large scale it's more easy to keep enough money coming in to sustain everyone.

i dont know exactly if nicho mend this. but the more children you have to more easy it is to get economic growth. but if you dont have enough children it means that you can't sustain everyone anymore.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,552 posts
Jester

but the more children you have to more easy it is to get economic growth. but if you dont have enough children it means that you can't sustain everyone anymore.


And then we have too many people and the laws of supply and demand kick in. Housing costs go through the roof, space becomes a premium, congestion occurs and kicks up transportation expenditures, pollution blossoms, utilities become strained or limited and the overall quality of life greatly decreases.

All we're doing by following this economic railway is heading for the cliff, gaining momentum as we speed down the hillside.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

The more children you make, the more you will have to sustain, the mroe you will have to go into debt. Here in Switzerland, contrary to many countries, we also don't have unlimited space. We don't need growth; what we should strive for is stability. If we had population dynamics like in India, we'd be soon doomed.

thecode11
offline
thecode11
239 posts
Nomad

Another way but harder way is to use mars and the moon to sustain colonies so we could send people there but eventually we would have to go farther to make more.We could also make more space stations but ones that support lets say 500 people in them.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

Mars has, so far we know, no nature or ecosystem we need to live with. If we settle there, we bring everything with us. That means we can more or less build on all the surface. Space issues on Mars are irrelevant for now, and will be for a long time.

The perfect thing of course would be either orbital space stations, or even completely free space bases. That way you don't have any space issue at all.

EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,439 posts
Jester

use mars and the moon to sustain colonies

We've already got problems sustaining this little blue dot. Until we have the technology to make such colonies self-sufficient, that's out. At this point, simply spreading everyone out won't help.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester

That way you don't have any space issue at all.

there is no space issue tho. and there wont be any even if we are whit 25 billion.
we need to balance our consumerism whit what the planet can give.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,552 posts
Jester

there is no space issue tho. and there wont be any even if we are whit 25 billion.
we need to balance our consumerism whit what the planet can give.


With 25 billion, we won't have space issues for people moving, but we won't have enough land to grow food unless we stack upwards instead of spreading out. Or unless we take to sea-faring cities, which would drastically free up fertile land for farming.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester

With 25 billion, we won't have space issues for people moving, but we won't have enough land to grow food unless we stack upwards instead of spreading out. Or unless we take to sea-faring cities, which would drastically free up fertile land for farming.


if 7 billion fir in L.A. then 25 billion fit in california. leaving loads of room for production.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester

but we won't have enough land to grow food

we already have that problem if we all live like the western world.
Showing 16-30 of 255