I'm not sure why people believe that we can rely upon war to curb our invariably geometric population growth. I would like to see some evidence for this because I don't believe this has ever been the case. The trend has always been the same - wars barely make a dent, and even if they did, the same factors that influence the growth would soon overtake the losses because this dent is but a single dip in space and time that breeding couples more than make up for in the long-run, especially if there is an urge to repopulate, or soldiers are ultimately reunited with their spouses and the first thing on their mind after that is...
I'm familiar with Mathus. I believe he's right in principle, even if he made some errors in his predictions and overestimated how great a problem certain factors are. One doesn't have to be an expert to see that the earth cannot forever sustain a rapidly growing population because its resources are fixed.
In any case, I was refuting the claim that we *wouldn't* see a devastating population crash because of war, though I still don't see war as a significant issue either way.
Hm, at this point I remember the previous time we discussed this, somebody gave me quite a compelling rebuttal of Malthus' principles, but I can't remember who it was...maybe it was thelistman.
On one hand we have overpopulation but in other cases we may experience an underpopulated crisis of sorts which would cause labor and skills shortages, esp. in developed countries.
I think the best way to stop Overpopulation is to only have one child or none at all, or immigrate people to other places that are not overpopulated, that's what I think.
I think the best way to stop Overpopulation is to only have one child or none at all, or immigrate people to other places that are not overpopulated, that's what I think.
Well, China only allows one child. But this just leads to more infants being killed, because when they find out that their one alloted child is a girl, they might just kill it and try for a boy.
if you look at that logiacally, without emotion, it makes sense. girls are the only sex that can reproduce, if they get raped, are a wh0re, etc. if men are raped, um i guess in the bad place.... they arent going to get pregnant. plus it drastically reduces the rate of children born on a country wide scale. although i hear homosexuality is high in those kinds of places.
As much as I would like to Strop, I just can't see VHE to be a legitimate option. We are animals who have an innate drive to procreate. Indeed our strongest emotional and physical bonds are typically with our offspring and those who provide them for us, our partners. However I do contend that there are other viable options for solving the issue of overpopulation.
I would propose that selective elimination of those who are the 'weak links' in our species and society, coupled with an integrated, secular, global eugenics plan along with a standard global educational system to educate people on the effects of overpopulation, eugenics, and voluntary extinction would be the most efficient and long lasting solution to gross overpopulation.
Education
The immediate need is for education. Without a global, secular educational system it will be near impossible to create a firm understanding of the needs of our planet, our species, and what measures must be taken.
Across the world we can see that those of certain religions, as well as those with less education, are likely to have more children. Part of a global education program would be to not only illustrate the need for the elimination of certain individuals and eugenics, but also to provide a solid education base in citizens regarding the need for families to procreate at a slower rate.
While the education regarding procreation would only be a solution for overpopulation in the long term, it would be necessary for selective elimination, the immediate solution, and eugenics, another long term solution, to be effectively applied on a global scale.
Selective Elimination
An immediate method to free up resources such as medical professionals, money, medicines, hospital space, food, et cetera in order to reduce the burden on our global society is the selective elimination of individuals who are of a greater detriment than benefit to the global society.
I would contend that these are the individuals who are terminally ill, carrying incurable diseases which can be passed by procreation, et cetera are of a great detriment to our global society. We spend billions of dollars per year on healthcare for these individuals, as well as the medicines used to keep them as healthy as possible, and the necessities for survival like food.
And immediate elimination of these selected individuals would free up massive amounts of resources, both natural and technological, which could be put to better use preparing for the long term solution for our overpopulation issue, coupled with the continuing education program.
Eugenics
As I put forth in a different debate some time ago, eugenics is one of the most viable options for the long term benefit of our species, as well as a medium and long term solution to our overpopulation issue.
The first step in enacting eugenics on a global scale, after education, is advancing our knowledge of the human genome. We must first identify key traits in the genome which show us which individuals have the highest propensities to pass on traits to their offspring which would be a burden to our society. These would be such things as autism, down syndrome, spina bifida, muscular dystrophy, and many other debilitating conditions.
These individuals would then be sterilized to ensure that they will gradually be eliminated from our gene pool. Initially this will drastically reduce the number of breeding members of our global society and this action alone has the potential to reduce our population by over 1 billion in just a few generations.
Along with this would be an instituted system of limited offspring among those members of the species who are allowed to propagate which will keep the population diverse and stable while continuing a gradual decline in global population commensurate with the capabilities of our resources and technology to provide for this population adequately.
While from our current perspective this may seem like an extreme measure, but imagine this. A world with no one who is hungry, none of the terrible diseases which I cited, no massive drain on our natural resources, the recovery of our planet from damage currently done by reducing our environmental footprint as a species, and a well educated global society.
While it would be far from utopia, it would clearly be a better world than the one we live in today, and I would contend that the sacrifices necessary to bring about such a radical change in our species is well worth it in light of the benefits.
