Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Population Control

zmikecuber
Posts: 4,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 9:35:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 6:00:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Good? Bad? Explain...

I have an idea. Let's force abortions on people like they do in China. Come in during the middle of the night, arrest the person who's pregnant, strap them down, give them an abortion, maybe sterilize them...

Enough sarcasm... lol. I think it's unneeded. Humanity has it's own way of not overpopulating. We've already made enough wars that have killed people, so I don't see why we need birth control. Besides, with the push of contraceptives, the ratio of old people to young people has been increasing, and I don't think that's a good thing.

But what exactly do you mean by "population control"? What methods?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 9:37:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I, for one, am going to make alot of babies when I get married. 6-10 kids sounds pretty good to me... lol.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 10:37:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 9:35:53 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/18/2013 6:00:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Good? Bad? Explain...

I have an idea. Let's force abortions on people like they do in China. Come in during the middle of the night, arrest the person who's pregnant, strap them down, give them an abortion, maybe sterilize them...

That seems like a rather unethical approach lol


Enough sarcasm... lol. I think it's unneeded.

Well, according to the World Health Organization, for every 1 death there are 2.25 births. I think it is needed lol I think all forms of ways to raise standards of living are technically needed. Also, stabilisation, or gradual reduction in population is one of the best ways to address the carbon emissions problem. The National Academy of Sciences demonstrated that slowing the population growth rate of a country to 1.5 births per woman from 2 births per woman could result in a 10% drop in greenhouse gas emissions by the middle of the century, and a 33% drop by the end of the century[http://www2.ucar.edu...].

Humanity has it's own way of not overpopulating. We've already made enough wars that have killed people, so I don't see why we need birth control.

Check the numbers. It isn't helping much.

Besides, with the push of contraceptives, the ratio of old people to young people has been increasing, and I don't think that's a good thing.

But what exactly do you mean by "population control"? What methods?

There are many methods. More lenient abortion laws, and more lenient laws for homosexuals, and euthanasia. I also think that if population growth gets too out of hand, we should be to give tax breaks to those willing to get sterilized.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 10:38:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 9:37:34 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I, for one, am going to make alot of babies when I get married. 6-10 kids sounds pretty good to me... lol.

Yikes.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 10:44:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
All about dat praxis.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 10:44:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 9:35:53 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/18/2013 6:00:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Good? Bad? Explain...

I have an idea. Let's force abortions on people like they do in China. Come in during the middle of the night, arrest the person who's pregnant, strap them down, give them an abortion, maybe sterilize them...

Enough sarcasm... lol. I think it's unneeded. Humanity has it's own way of not overpopulating. We've already made enough wars that have killed people, so I don't see why we need birth control. Besides, with the push of contraceptives, the ratio of old people to young people has been increasing, and I don't think that's a good thing.

But what exactly do you mean by "population control"? What methods?

Other methods could be promoting condoms, birth control, and most importantly, helping out poor nations. For some reason, poor people tend to have way more children than better off people. Stats have shown than when you raise the standard of living in an area, the people have less children.

I don't think we have to resort to anything drastic like Logan's Run, but at the rate we are going it could be a scary possibility.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 9:23:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 10:37:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/18/2013 9:35:53 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/18/2013 6:00:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Good? Bad? Explain...

I have an idea. Let's force abortions on people like they do in China. Come in during the middle of the night, arrest the person who's pregnant, strap them down, give them an abortion, maybe sterilize them...

That seems like a rather unethical approach lol


Indeed. Results in emotional scarring, alcoholism, drug abuse, suicide, etc. etc.


Enough sarcasm... lol. I think it's unneeded.

Well, according to the World Health Organization, for every 1 death there are 2.25 births. I think it is needed lol I think all forms of ways to raise standards of living are technically needed. Also, stabilisation, or gradual reduction in population is one of the best ways to address the carbon emissions problem. The National Academy of Sciences demonstrated that slowing the population growth rate of a country to 1.5 births per woman from 2 births per woman could result in a 10% drop in greenhouse gas emissions by the middle of the century, and a 33% drop by the end of the century[http://www2.ucar.edu...].


It's not that there isn't enough room though. That argument is old and burnt out... We do have enough room for now.

I think the best argument is that we will run out of resources. But with technology having such an incredibly rapid increase, it seems these problems will be solvable in the future. The same with your greenhouse gas argument... We're clever creatures.

Anyways, we need a replacement rate of 2.1. That means for every two people, 2.1 people are produced. Most countries are below that. US is at 2.0. Germany is 1.4... This means that as old people live longer, there are less young people around. In other words... most countries are gradually becoming "older." And if you have more old people than young people... well that's not good.


Humanity has it's own way of not overpopulating. We've already made enough wars that have killed people, so I don't see why we need birth control.

Check the numbers. It isn't helping much.


Besides, with the push of contraceptives, the ratio of old people to young people has been increasing, and I don't think that's a good thing.

But what exactly do you mean by "population control"? What methods?

There are many methods. More lenient abortion laws, and more lenient laws for homosexuals, and euthanasia. I also think that if population growth gets too out of hand, we should be to give tax breaks to those willing to get sterilized.

Now it's my turn to say "Yikes".... lol. That's not the type of country I want to live in at least. We (US) are already below the needed birthrate. So while we all become gay, kill off old people, get more abortions, etc. etc. Some other country is going to breed more people and take us over.

At 12/18/2013 10:38:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/18/2013 9:37:34 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I, for one, am going to make alot of babies when I get married. 6-10 kids sounds pretty good to me... lol.

Yikes.

Lol! You should be scared. ;) The traditional Catholics, and anyone else who has traditional values generally have alot of kids. While homosexuals, people who contracept, pro-aborts, generally don't have as many kids. I've known people from families of 12 kids who are successful engineers, accountants, whatever, and are out there having more large families. And their kids will have more large families, etc. etc.

In other words, people with traditional values are going to out breed those who don't (or can't.) Just sayin'...
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 9:28:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
EDIT: Fertility rates are per woman I believe. Not per couple.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 1:37:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 9:23:27 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/18/2013 10:37:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/18/2013 9:35:53 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/18/2013 6:00:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Good? Bad? Explain...

I have an idea. Let's force abortions on people like they do in China. Come in during the middle of the night, arrest the person who's pregnant, strap them down, give them an abortion, maybe sterilize them...

That seems like a rather unethical approach lol


Indeed. Results in emotional scarring, alcoholism, drug abuse, suicide, etc. etc.


Enough sarcasm... lol. I think it's unneeded.

Well, according to the World Health Organization, for every 1 death there are 2.25 births. I think it is needed lol I think all forms of ways to raise standards of living are technically needed. Also, stabilisation, or gradual reduction in population is one of the best ways to address the carbon emissions problem. The National Academy of Sciences demonstrated that slowing the population growth rate of a country to 1.5 births per woman from 2 births per woman could result in a 10% drop in greenhouse gas emissions by the middle of the century, and a 33% drop by the end of the century[http://www2.ucar.edu...].


It's not that there isn't enough room though. That argument is old and burnt out... We do have enough room for now.

Room isn't really my main concern. Either way, room will be a problem if global warming continues. If we continue on our path, then by 2300 half the planet that is habitable now; won't be [http://cleantechnica.com...].

I think the best argument is that we will run out of resources. But with technology having such an incredibly rapid increase, it seems these problems will be solvable in the future.

It sounds nice, but new technology cannot just replace old methods without severely damaging the economy. Also, even if this method can help, that doesn't mean population control cannot help as well.

I am not saying population control is the only method, but it's a big one. I remember Bill Gate's equation; Co2 = People lol

The same with your greenhouse gas argument... We're clever creatures.

Yes we are. Since we know that lowering population control lowers greenhouse gases like crazy, then we should be clever enough to implement population control to a further extent as we know it will work.


Anyways, we need a replacement rate of 2.1. That means for every two people, 2.1 people are produced. Most countries are below that. US is at 2.0. Germany is 1.4... This means that as old people live longer, there are less young people around. In other words... most countries are gradually becoming "older." And if you have more old people than young people... well that's not good.

No, but it is more good than over population (lesser of two evils). Also, you have to realize that the methods I mentioned are not just preventative of births, but also the cause of death for older people. For example, Euthanasia.



Humanity has it's own way of not overpopulating. We've already made enough wars that have killed people, so I don't see why we need birth control.

Check the numbers. It isn't helping much.


Besides, with the push of contraceptives, the ratio of old people to young people has been increasing, and I don't think that's a good thing.

It is the lesser of two evils. I would rather have more old people than young, then a crazy amount of people on this planet polluting it and using up all our finite resources, and lowering the standard of living.

Just looked what happened in Egypt. Their birth rates rose and there was no population control:

"Over decades, Egypt's climbing birthrates have helped choke its cities."[http://www.nytimes.com...]


But what exactly do you mean by "population control"? What methods?

There are many methods. More lenient abortion laws, and more lenient laws for homosexuals, and euthanasia. I also think that if population growth gets too out of hand, we should be to give tax breaks to those willing to get sterilized.

Now it's my turn to say "Yikes".... lol. That's not the type of country I want to live in at least.

That's because you are probably Conservative.

We (US) are already below the needed birthrate.

How is the birth rate low? The birth rate won't be low, in my opinion, until it is the same as the death rate, and we have a steady population with no growth. It is 1 death for every 2.25 births right now. Until it is 1 and 1, I don't see how the birth rate is low. I will concede that low birth rates cause many short term problems, but population growth causes extreme long term problems. Do you care more about yourself, or the world you leave behind for the next generation? As long as more people are born than die, the population will never stop growing (its mathematically necessary). Do the math. The Earth has a finite surface area, and the population seems like it can grow potentially infinitely (it hasn't stopped, it just keeps climbing and climbing and climbing....sort of like an expanding universe).

That doesn't scare you?!

So while we all become gay, kill off old people, get more abortions, etc. etc. Some other country is going to breed more people and take us over.

I never said the whole country has to become gay, kill old people, and get more abortions. Just that we shouldn't have laws preventing these things. If people want to be gay; let them. Less of a chance they were reproduce. If an old person doesn't want to live anymore; pull the plug. One less mouth to feed, and they won't suffer any more. If a woman wants to get an abortion? Let it happen. Less Co2 polluting the air.


At 12/18/2013 10:38:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/18/2013 9:37:34 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I, for one, am going to make alot of babies when I get married. 6-10 kids sounds pretty good to me... lol.

Yikes.

Lol! You should be scared. ;) The traditional Catholics, and anyone else who has traditional values generally have alot of kids. While homosexuals, people who contracept, pro-aborts, generally don't have as many kids. I've known people from families of 12 kids who are successful engineers, accountants, whatever, and are out there having more large families. And their kids will have more large families, etc. etc.

In other words, people with traditional values are going to out breed those who don't (or can't.) Just sayin'...

You assume all your kids are going to adopt your values. My mother and my father both came from Christian families, but are secular and non-religious. Also, well, having a lot of kids; that's a problem. Quit polluting the planet with your children lol If I ruled the world, I would give tax breaks to those willing to get sterilized so they cannot reproduce.

As long as the Earth is finite, and the population grows without any halt; the collapse of the world as we know it is inevitable.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 1:43:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
(correction)

*Yes we are. Since we know that lowering population growth (not control) lowers greenhouse gases like crazy, then we should be clever enough to implement population control to a further extent as we know it will work.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 1:43:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Before population control I would like to see resource control.

One of the main arguments against an increasing population is the large strain it has/will have on limited resources. But many reports say there are more then enough resources for this growing population, and the problem is gluttonous (for lack of a better term) countries like the US waste a disproportional amount.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 1:51:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.worldometers.info...

Look at that population meter. The population just keeps growing and growing and growing. The math speaks for itself. If we live in a finite planet, with finite resources, and only a finite amount of Co2 it can handle; we HAVE to cap the population somehow. There is no way around it.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 1:58:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 1:43:56 PM, HPWKA wrote:
Before population control I would like to see resource control.

One of the main arguments against an increasing population is the large strain it has/will have on limited resources. But many reports say there are more then enough resources for this growing population, and the problem is gluttonous (for lack of a better term) countries like the US waste a disproportional amount.

If there are enough resources, we all have to lower our standards of living to accomidate for everyone. This is why population control is more important. Either way, it is mathematically impossible for the planet to sustain us long term if the population keeps growing. The Earth is finite and so our its resources; the growth isn't stopping.

It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out that a planet with finite resources, space, and clean environments cannot sustain a population that never stops growing. It may be a hundred years from now, but it will catch up to us and we will perish. The population growth has a good chance of being the cause of the death of our species as we know it.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 2:17:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Interesting conversation.

At 12/19/2013 9:23:27 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/18/2013 10:37:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/18/2013 9:35:53 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/18/2013 6:00:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Good? Bad? Explain...

I have an idea. Let's force abortions on people like they do in China. Come in during the middle of the night, arrest the person who's pregnant, strap them down, give them an abortion, maybe sterilize them...

That seems like a rather unethical approach lol


Indeed. Results in emotional scarring, alcoholism, drug abuse, suicide, etc. etc.

It's also fictional, too.

Enough sarcasm... lol. I think it's unneeded.

Well, according to the World Health Organization, for every 1 death there are 2.25 births. I think it is needed lol I think all forms of ways to raise standards of living are technically needed. Also, stabilisation, or gradual reduction in population is one of the best ways to address the carbon emissions problem. The National Academy of Sciences demonstrated that slowing the population growth rate of a country to 1.5 births per woman from 2 births per woman could result in a 10% drop in greenhouse gas emissions by the middle of the century, and a 33% drop by the end of the century[http://www2.ucar.edu...].


It's not that there isn't enough room though. That argument is old and burnt out... We do have enough room for now.

I think the best argument is that we will run out of resources. But with technology having such an incredibly rapid increase, it seems these problems will be solvable in the future. The same with your greenhouse gas argument... We're clever creatures.

Anyways, we need a replacement rate of 2.1. That means for every two people, 2.1 people are produced. Most countries are below that. US is at 2.0. Germany is 1.4... This means that as old people live longer, there are less young people around. In other words... most countries are gradually becoming "older." And if you have more old people than young people... well that's not good.


Humanity has it's own way of not overpopulating. We've already made enough wars that have killed people, so I don't see why we need birth control.

Check the numbers. It isn't helping much.


Besides, with the push of contraceptives, the ratio of old people to young people has been increasing, and I don't think that's a good thing.

But what exactly do you mean by "population control"? What methods?

There are many methods. More lenient abortion laws, and more lenient laws for homosexuals, and euthanasia. I also think that if population growth gets too out of hand, we should be to give tax breaks to those willing to get sterilized.

Now it's my turn to say "Yikes".... lol. That's not the type of country I want to live in at least. We (US) are already below the needed birthrate. So while we all become gay, kill off old people, get more abortions, etc. etc. Some other country is going to breed more people and take us over.

Agree. IMHO by far the easiest and most effective form of population control would be to tax families with more than a certain amount of children.

For example, in Korea, they tax people who own more than one car in order to cut down on pollution. This controls the automobile population. Tax is an effective, morally neutral way of enacting such a proposal.

At 12/18/2013 10:38:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/18/2013 9:37:34 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I, for one, am going to make alot of babies when I get married. 6-10 kids sounds pretty good to me... lol.

Yikes.

Lol! You should be scared. ;) The traditional Catholics, and anyone else who has traditional values generally have alot of kids. While homosexuals, people who contracept, pro-aborts, generally don't have as many kids. I've known people from families of 12 kids who are successful engineers, accountants, whatever, and are out there having more large families. And their kids will have more large families, etc. etc.

In other words, people with traditional values are going to out breed those who don't (or can't.) Just sayin'...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 3:07:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 6:00:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Good? Bad? Explain...

It's all dependent on how it's implemented. China did a pretty decent job, as you are only allowed one child, and you are simply fined if you have more.

I wouldn't mind going a step further, and forcing vasectomies on repeat offenders, but the system probably works as is (I don't know of any statistics on it).

I'm actually kind of surprised that more countries aren't doing policies, since over-population is always a debatable problem, and will only get less and less debatable as time goes on.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 3:13:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 3:07:21 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/18/2013 6:00:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Good? Bad? Explain...

It's all dependent on how it's implemented. China did a pretty decent job, as you are only allowed one child, and you are simply fined if you have more.

I wouldn't mind going a step further, and forcing vasectomies on repeat offenders, but the system probably works as is (I don't know of any statistics on it).

I like the idea of tax breaks for people willing to get sterilized. So, you can chose a life with no children but generous tax breaks your whole life, or have a family without generous tax breaks your whole life.


I'm actually kind of surprised that more countries aren't doing policies, since over-population is always a debatable problem, and will only get less and less debatable as time goes on.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 3:23:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 3:13:51 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/19/2013 3:07:21 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/18/2013 6:00:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Good? Bad? Explain...

It's all dependent on how it's implemented. China did a pretty decent job, as you are only allowed one child, and you are simply fined if you have more.

I wouldn't mind going a step further, and forcing vasectomies on repeat offenders, but the system probably works as is (I don't know of any statistics on it).

I like the idea of tax breaks for people willing to get sterilized. So, you can chose a life with no children but generous tax breaks your whole life, or have a without generous tax breaks your whole life.

Tax breaks do make a lot of sense, since having kids is a tax break in it of itself (at least in the U.S.), so giving up that right for the same benefit seems quite fair.


I'm actually kind of surprised that more countries aren't doing policies, since over-population is always a debatable problem, and will only get less and less debatable as time goes on.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 4:03:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 3:23:39 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/19/2013 3:13:51 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/19/2013 3:07:21 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/18/2013 6:00:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Good? Bad? Explain...

It's all dependent on how it's implemented. China did a pretty decent job, as you are only allowed one child, and you are simply fined if you have more.

I wouldn't mind going a step further, and forcing vasectomies on repeat offenders, but the system probably works as is (I don't know of any statistics on it).

I like the idea of tax breaks for people willing to get sterilized. So, you can chose a life with no children but generous tax breaks your whole life, or have a without generous tax breaks your whole life.

Tax breaks do make a lot of sense, since having kids is a tax break in it of itself (at least in the U.S.), so giving up that right for the same benefit seems quite fair.

Perhaps the tax break would be much more. You do realize that there are degrees, right? When you take that into account, it still seems like a good idea.



I'm actually kind of surprised that more countries aren't doing policies, since over-population is always a debatable problem, and will only get less and less debatable as time goes on.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 4:29:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 4:03:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/19/2013 3:23:39 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/19/2013 3:13:51 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/19/2013 3:07:21 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/18/2013 6:00:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Good? Bad? Explain...

It's all dependent on how it's implemented. China did a pretty decent job, as you are only allowed one child, and you are simply fined if you have more.

I wouldn't mind going a step further, and forcing vasectomies on repeat offenders, but the system probably works as is (I don't know of any statistics on it).

I like the idea of tax breaks for people willing to get sterilized. So, you can chose a life with no children but generous tax breaks your whole life, or have a without generous tax breaks your whole life.

Tax breaks do make a lot of sense, since having kids is a tax break in it of itself (at least in the U.S.), so giving up that right for the same benefit seems quite fair.

Perhaps the tax break would be much more. You do realize that there are degrees, right? When you take that into account, it still seems like a good idea.

Degrees of what? Tax breaks? I have yet to get employed, so I don't know much about tax breaks outside of economics class, and listening to my parents during tax time.



I'm actually kind of surprised that more countries aren't doing policies, since over-population is always a debatable problem, and will only get less and less debatable as time goes on.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 10:26:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 1:58:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/19/2013 1:43:56 PM, HPWKA wrote:
Before population control I would like to see resource control.

One of the main arguments against an increasing population is the large strain it has/will have on limited resources. But many reports say there are more then enough resources for this growing population, and the problem is gluttonous (for lack of a better term) countries like the US waste a disproportional amount.

If there are enough resources, we all have to lower our standards of living to accomidate for everyone. This is why population control is more important. Either way, it is mathematically impossible for the planet to sustain us long term if the population keeps growing. The Earth is finite and so our its resources; the growth isn't stopping.

It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out that a planet with finite resources, space, and clean environments cannot sustain a population that never stops growing. It may be a hundred years from now, but it will catch up to us and we will perish. The population growth has a good chance of being the cause of the death of our species as we know it.

In a way, one of the best things to do is to assist other countries and raise their basic standard of living.

Scientists do not know the carrying capacity of Earth, but it easily can well exceed 7 billion. The issue is less the number of people than it is resources consumed. Americans, for example, consume several times the amount of resources as people in other countries, and nobody could really argue that they take far more than their fair share. Nations like China and India are trying to live like America does.

The problem is, the world cannot afford to live like America does. There are not enough resources (even the most conservative estimates place the end of oil around 2100), and we do not have any sufficient alternative energy-based means to generate new ones.

Why should the solution be to lower/cap the populations of other nations so that Americans can continue lounging in luxury?

All developing nations see population jumps. Once they become developed, the population will decline again. It might be best to help them reach that point.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 8:25:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/22/2013 10:26:45 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/19/2013 1:58:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/19/2013 1:43:56 PM, HPWKA wrote:
Before population control I would like to see resource control.

One of the main arguments against an increasing population is the large strain it has/will have on limited resources. But many reports say there are more then enough resources for this growing population, and the problem is gluttonous (for lack of a better term) countries like the US waste a disproportional amount.

If there are enough resources, we all have to lower our standards of living to accomidate for everyone. This is why population control is more important. Either way, it is mathematically impossible for the planet to sustain us long term if the population keeps growing. The Earth is finite and so our its resources; the growth isn't stopping.

It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out that a planet with finite resources, space, and clean environments cannot sustain a population that never stops growing. It may be a hundred years from now, but it will catch up to us and we will perish. The population growth has a good chance of being the cause of the death of our species as we know it.

In a way, one of the best things to do is to assist other countries and raise their basic standard of living.

I agree, as that slows down population growth. Poor people have more children than people that are well off.


Scientists do not know the carrying capacity of Earth, but it easily can well exceed 7 billion.

Obviously, but not forever. Scientists say that if Co2 emissions keep up the way they are, half of the planet that is habitable now won't be by the year 2300. People are one of the biggest causes of Co2 emissions.

The issue is less the number of people than it is resources consumed. Americans, for example, consume several times the amount of resources as people in other countries, and nobody could really argue that they take far more than their fair share. Nations like China and India are trying to live like America does.

The problem is, the world cannot afford to live like America does. There are not enough resources (even the most conservative estimates place the end of oil around 2100), and we do not have any sufficient alternative energy-based means to generate new ones.

Why should the solution be to lower/cap the populations of other nations so that Americans can continue lounging in luxury?

I think America should lower their population as well.


All developing nations see population jumps. Once they become developed, the population will decline again.

The population never stops climbing, even if it slows down. Eventually, we have to figure out a way to cap the population.

It might be best to help them reach that point.
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 8:49:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Taxing kids seems like the most reasonable and popularly acceptable solution.

Some countries like Germany, Russia, and Japan have declining populations; they can give deductions for kids.
0x5f3759df
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 8:54:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 2:17:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/19/2013 9:23:27 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/18/2013 10:37:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/18/2013 9:35:53 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I have an idea. Let's force abortions on people like they do in China. Come in during the middle of the night, arrest the person who's pregnant, strap them down, give them an abortion, maybe sterilize them...

That seems like a rather unethical approach lol


Indeed. Results in emotional scarring, alcoholism, drug abuse, suicide, etc. etc.

It's also fictional, too.

It's refreshing to see the globally informed people of this forum.
0x5f3759df
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 1:56:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 6:00:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Good? Bad? Explain...

Good, as it would save our natural recourses and make Earth more habitable.
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 10:03:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 2:17:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Interesting conversation.

At 12/19/2013 9:23:27 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/18/2013 10:37:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/18/2013 9:35:53 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/18/2013 6:00:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Good? Bad? Explain...

I have an idea. Let's force abortions on people like they do in China. Come in during the middle of the night, arrest the person who's pregnant, strap them down, give them an abortion, maybe sterilize them...

That seems like a rather unethical approach lol


Indeed. Results in emotional scarring, alcoholism, drug abuse, suicide, etc. etc.

It's also fictional, too.


So exactly how does China enforce their "one child" policy then?

Enough sarcasm... lol. I think it's unneeded.

Well, according to the World Health Organization, for every 1 death there are 2.25 births. I think it is needed lol I think all forms of ways to raise standards of living are technically needed. Also, stabilisation, or gradual reduction in population is one of the best ways to address the carbon emissions problem. The National Academy of Sciences demonstrated that slowing the population growth rate of a country to 1.5 births per woman from 2 births per woman could result in a 10% drop in greenhouse gas emissions by the middle of the century, and a 33% drop by the end of the century[http://www2.ucar.edu...].


It's not that there isn't enough room though. That argument is old and burnt out... We do have enough room for now.

I think the best argument is that we will run out of resources. But with technology having such an incredibly rapid increase, it seems these problems will be solvable in the future. The same with your greenhouse gas argument... We're clever creatures.

Anyways, we need a replacement rate of 2.1. That means for every two people, 2.1 people are produced. Most countries are below that. US is at 2.0. Germany is 1.4... This means that as old people live longer, there are less young people around. In other words... most countries are gradually becoming "older." And if you have more old people than young people... well that's not good.


Humanity has it's own way of not overpopulating. We've already made enough wars that have killed people, so I don't see why we need birth control.

Check the numbers. It isn't helping much.


Besides, with the push of contraceptives, the ratio of old people to young people has been increasing, and I don't think that's a good thing.

But what exactly do you mean by "population control"? What methods?

There are many methods. More lenient abortion laws, and more lenient laws for homosexuals, and euthanasia. I also think that if population growth gets too out of hand, we should be to give tax breaks to those willing to get sterilized.

Now it's my turn to say "Yikes".... lol. That's not the type of country I want to live in at least. We (US) are already below the needed birthrate. So while we all become gay, kill off old people, get more abortions, etc. etc. Some other country is going to breed more people and take us over.

Agree. IMHO by far the easiest and most effective form of population control would be to tax families with more than a certain amount of children.

For example, in Korea, they tax people who own more than one car in order to cut down on pollution. This controls the automobile population. Tax is an effective, morally neutral way of enacting such a proposal.

At 12/18/2013 10:38:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/18/2013 9:37:34 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I, for one, am going to make alot of babies when I get married. 6-10 kids sounds pretty good to me... lol.

Yikes.

Lol! You should be scared. ;) The traditional Catholics, and anyone else who has traditional values generally have alot of kids. While homosexuals, people who contracept, pro-aborts, generally don't have as many kids. I've known people from families of 12 kids who are successful engineers, accountants, whatever, and are out there having more large families. And their kids will have more large families, etc. etc.

In other words, people with traditional values are going to out breed those who don't (or can't.) Just sayin'...
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."