AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Population Control: Responsible Decision or Grevious Offense to Nature

44 8730
pickleshack
offline
pickleshack
356 posts
Nomad

This one is pretty complicated. The implications of population control are great but, here is my argument for it:

Human beings have well exceeded the population at which we could find some equilibrium with the planet. Population control seems to be the only way to mitigate the lack of space a resources facing our species. Any thoughts?

Should you be allowed to have as many babies as you want, or should there be a world wide limit, as a consideration for future generations?

  • 44 Replies
locoace3
offline
locoace3
15,053 posts
Nomad

Even though mankind is part of nature.


I'm no nature hippy but we have been separating ourselves from nature a lot lately we could use more natural stuff instead of cement asphalt and concrete like using giant trees as dividers in roads >.>
SubZero131
offline
SubZero131
598 posts
Nomad

Mankind was made seperate of nature.


humans are just a link in evolutionary chain, we are by no means &quoterfect" or the best or final design.
nevetsthereaper
offline
nevetsthereaper
641 posts
Nomad

soilent green anyone?? google it.... but seriously, the only problem is, contrary to popular beleif the resources we USE not have are dwindling, for some reason, people don't realize that in the last 200 years, we have used up what it took the sun and the earth millions of years to make, ie fossil fuels. we do however still have an abundance of untapped energy in the form of nuclear energy. bricks of uranium or plutonium, which realistically the only other use for is in bombs, put in huge lead containers, surrounded in a large tank of water. the urnaium is unstable and as it breaks down and decays, it lets loose 2 neutrons, which can then break 2 more nuclei, thus heating the box and heating the water to a boil, then the steam turns turbines which then generate electricity. the reaction can be slowed, by placing more lead rods into the mix, which will absorb the neutrons, preventing them from splitting anymore. and if you look at nuclear reaction used in bombs, they are tremendously wasteful. the explosions in japan, it is estimated, only used 1% if the mass of the uranium in each bomb. the other 99% vaporized, creating the pollution in the area. the percent that exploded only went until it hit something, then dissolved. its a shame to think that they are wasting this ever so precious element in such stupid devices. i fear that if left to our own devices this race will make itself extinct.



but anyway, the population control idea would work in an ideal situation, the only problem is deciding who deserves to live and who deserves to die. theoretically if we follow the u.s. constitution, this world will overpopulate and die. we need to make our selves devoid of emotion in order to decide something of that magnitude. only logical thought can be accepted.but what do you think the chances of that happening are? do you have the logical competence to decide if you should live or die, and for the right reasons? its a choice no man can make for himself, but everyone wants to make for everyone else. chew on that for a minute.

Masterforger
offline
Masterforger
1,824 posts
Peasant

Well, it seems alright, but it is rather unfair to say "You will have to die to control the population"

Strop
offline
Strop
10,816 posts
Bard

A subtlety presents itself, and in so doing the crux of the debate is revealed:

By the way it wouldnt be an offense to nature it would be an offense to mankind.


This is true.

Mankind was made seperate of nature.


This is not.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester

birth controle in china is a BIG fail. so if we want to controle it then atleast a maximum of 2 baby's but i think that will fail aswell since not evry1 will be having 2 babys.if you go for 3 babys then you maybe do not solve the problem because maybe more then 2 kids come from evry 2 parents.

Armed_Blade
offline
Armed_Blade
1,482 posts
Shepherd

birth controle in china is a BIG fail.


That's funny, seeing as a nation with so much industry and agriculture, and not much of a post-industrial economy, China's birth rate has slowed down and is much less than it's historical counterparts such as the US and areas of Europe that experienced Industrial and Pre-Industrial phases.

not solve the problem because maybe more then 2 kids come from evry 2 parents.


Close, but a little off. Every nation has a 'replacement fertility level'. As you probably know, not all babies live, not all little children live too long, and people die. That being said, this level, even in the safest and happiest of nations, is always a little over the number two [ And, in others, much closer to 3]

Personally, I think, that if it gets out of hand, nature might correct itself. I mean, if resources got low, food prices jumped, I feel some people in developed countries would chose to reserve money and resources for just one kid or two.
PretzelKarma
offline
PretzelKarma
8 posts
Nomad

Human beings have well exceeded the population at which we could find some equilibrium with the planet. Population control seems to be the only way to mitigate the lack of space a resources facing our species. Any thoughts?


I disagree. Humanity has a problem with population distribution. There are countries in the world that you could consider underpopulated. Canada has a population around 35,000,000 I believe. And yet is is a much larger than America which has a population aaround 350,000,000.

And then there's the fact that most of the worlds population growth is in the poorer nations. Having a child in America costs money, while having a child in another country can make you money.

I'm not sure what would be taken better by the world. Forced population distribution or a "child limit."

Neither are likely any time soon. And we already know that a child limit would, in many countries, lead to a disparity between the male and female population.
master565
offline
master565
4,104 posts
Nomad

Canada has a population around 35,000,000 I believe. And yet is is a much larger than America which has a population aaround 350,000,000.


Just like Russia, a large amount of Canada is frozen tundra that is almost completely uninhabitable.
PretzelKarma
offline
PretzelKarma
8 posts
Nomad

Just like Russia, a large amount of Canada is frozen tundra that is almost completely uninhabitable.


350,000,000 in 9,826,675 km2

vs.

35,000,000 in 9,984,670 km2

If you said that Nunavut, Northwest Territories, and Yukon were uninhabitable completely (which they aren't) then Canada would still have 6,062,931 km2 of area.

Actual Canadian Population as of 2006: 32,623,490/6,062,931 = 5.38 people per square kilometre. With biased numbers due to the assumption that 3 very large territories are completely uninhabitable when they are not.

Actual American Population as of 2010: 308,745,538/9,826,675 km2 =

31.4 people per kilometre squared.

My point stands.
Armed_Blade
offline
Armed_Blade
1,482 posts
Shepherd

My point stands.


Eh.

Canada is cold and isolated.
The truth of the matter can be found on something like this.
Population distribution

I know uninhabitable means you can't live in it, but it is quite obvious that Canada is not a superb place to live in. Albeit, it contains many natural resources, they are in cold places.
The biggest thing that effects Canada's climate is it's population, and climate typically has a much smaller range in coastal areas. [Looking at that map, you can see that people like the coast!]

Now, of course, coasts offer many more opportunities besides a good climate [harbors and fishing and shipbuilding and oil and stuff]
Yet, it is clear that a lack of ocean-created humidity leads to a serious depletion of airborne heat during the winter.

A good counter-example to your argument is the state of Montana. It, too, could hold a good 5 Million people, yet, currently has close to 1. If you were to look at a population density map of the US, you'll see the middle is less populated. Canada, unlike the US, is also much higher up, obviously giving it a lower average temperature, but, what's more, a shorter agricultural growing season. Personally, I would see it fit that a country that cannot grow so much food would have a low population, as own-grown food is always a nicer thought.

Overall, it makes perfect sense for Canada to be so unpopulated. It is cold and harsh, and although it has great places. [Coastal BC, has a warmer winter than most of the USA!], the majority of that land mass is a bunch of chilly forest -- not because it can't compare with the American birth/immigration rate, it is because nobody wants to be born/emigrate to some of those places.

I'm sure, if people tried in Yukon, they'd have some millions there -- but why not just party it up in the Northeastern section of the US -- with more jobs, heat, an actual growing season, etc?

So the point isn't really there, Canada will never boast a population of a modern country. Even a place like Stockholm, Sweden won't work. Although it boasts 2.1 million people in its metropolitan area, that area is also home to 22% of it's population -- and, obviously enough, it lies on the coast, and is a rather warm city for that kind of northernness.

Russia, also proves the same point. Siberia, having around 70% of the land area, has 4 ppl per square km, whilst all of Russia together has around 8, indicating that the coastal section is pulling a lot of weight to keep that number at 8.
*****

Overall, I think that if given an option, people will pick the warmest places. Shade, water, AC, houses, helps to kill heat, which can go away in the night. Cold, though, is, I think, a lot worse, and annoying.
master565
offline
master565
4,104 posts
Nomad

It's not that nobody can live in these parts, I'm saying nobody wants to.

This page and this page (the part on the right were it says "land use&quot, and this map seem to show that Canada isn't nearly as used as it may seem. It may still have less people then America per kilometer squared, but not as much as you may think. Most of their population is crowded into the south east of the country so that is the best place to take an estimate of how much land they are using, to how many people are in that land.

*hopes all the links work*

Dragonblaze052
offline
Dragonblaze052
26,677 posts
Peasant

It would be a grievous offense to nature if we didn't control the population. As was said earlier, we have grown beyond equilibrium. It would be the least we could do to just limit the population, but it is also the greatest that can be shown due to moral and ethical restrictions.

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,552 posts
Jester

Nature itself has population limiters, via food supply and space. We are using our technology to exceed what is normally possible, and hurting everything else in the process. It'd really be best for the human race if each couple/women only had 1 kid so the population would decrease over time, and thus put less strain on the planet, resource consumption, other species and ourselves.

PretzelKarma
offline
PretzelKarma
8 posts
Nomad


It's not that nobody can live in these parts, I'm saying nobody wants to.

This page and this page (the part on the right were it says "land use&quot, and this map seem to show that Canada isn't nearly as used as it may seem. It may still have less people then America per kilometer squared, but not as much as you may think. Most of their population is crowded into the south east of the country so that is the best place to take an estimate of how much land they are using, to how many people are in that land.


I am aware 50% of our population is in that little triangle by the great Lakes. And that of the rest, the majority is focused along the border.

Overall, it makes perfect sense for Canada to be so unpopulated. It is cold and harsh, and although it has great places. [Coastal BC, has a warmer winter than most of the USA!], the majority of that land mass is a bunch of chilly forest -- not because it can't compare with the American birth/immigration rate, it is because nobody wants to be born/emigrate to some of those places.


I guess cold in my eyes is different than cold in the eyes of someone from say Florida. To me a morning at -20 celsius wouldn't seem crazy to get up and go to work in. Maybe you have to be born here...

we have grown beyond equilibrium


Even with my previous point defeated. There is no concensus in the scientific community that we have grown beyond our ability to sustain ourselves and our environment.

Even then. Has expansions to other planets been considered? (Thanks to Wikipedia) I know that with a service the size of our current airline industry we would have the ability to offload all new population growth off the planet. There could be settlements on the moon or mars.

The resources of these planets are enough to sustain 10 quadrillion people! This would likely lead to Earth being merely a centre of business and agriculture to help supply these settlements.

I'm not saying I think we should actually do this. In fact I'm actually in favour of population control to some extent in some countries. But before anything like a worldwide limit was ever considered, all options would be considered.
Showing 16-30 of 44