• Yes

  • Dr. No

56% 14 votes
44% 11 votes
  • All problems on earth can be solved through reducing the population Global warming, Crime, racism, the failing education and prison systems, homelessness, disease, antibiotic resistance, the house crisis, war, political corruption, the war on drugs, unemployment, poverty, adoption, mental illness, depression, the unequal distribution of wealth, starvation and so on. The ecosystem of the Earth can only sustain so many humans, we are obviously pushing the boundaries too far anyways and we need to reduce our population. In a perfect society no children would be born, but everyone that wished so would live indefinitely until they decided to be euthanised. Test tube babies and genetic modification are the way to go, but that's a discussion for another time.

    Posted by: CJRD
  • We are maxing/have maxed, this planet's carrying capacity, pollution and wastefulness, and environmental neglect and abuse have become the norm in the core of most lives in America alone, if we don't take responsibility, then we don't deserve to repopulate.

    Posted by: Marcuz
  • Over-population is the biggest problem facing the world today. Plus, babies are ugly, mothers are annoying, and fathers are stupid.

  • Overpopulation would be an asocial's worst nightmare

  • Never should any entity be able to force it on people either, as it is tyrannical and abusive. Depriving people of a choice to be able to continue to have children is (to me) disgusting on all levels.

  • You shouldn't force things on people.

  • Over population is BS

  • The vast majority of developed countries already have birthrates far too low to maintain on their own.

  • it should not be reduced, especially not in the predominately "white countries" as their birth rate is already terribly low. if anywhere it should be asia and muslim countries...

  • Birth rates should not be reduced. There will always be bad things humanity will do regardless of population,race,gender,etc.

  • It feels immoral to force it on society. Thankfully, we probably won't have to. Current predictions for population expect the increase to dramatically slow soon, and potentially even decrease slightly- why anger society by taking away their freedom for no reason?

  • In Western countries, we need to increase birth rates if we intend to survive, as they have fallen below 2, which is the replacement rate and continue to fall.

    Posted by: BennyW
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
CJRD says2016-05-28T16:37:25.3816641Z
I'd like to point out to the cons that this can be a completely voluntary program, no one has to be forced to do anything, if educated on the matter then more people may be willing to participate, this is also more ethical than birthing children into poverty, war, an unloving family or disaster.
BrendanD19 says2016-05-28T16:39:48.2317798Z
Malthusianism is total BS. Population growth is slowing anyway.
CJRD says2016-05-28T16:44:44.3996783Z
This is directed to BrendanD19 and anyone who agrees with him. 1.6 billion people live without adequate housing, 795 million people in the world do not have enough food to lead a healthy active life. That is undeniable proof alone that we do not share enough resources for our current population to live comfortably, or live at all, we are overpopulated and it causes problems which cannot be solved any other way, but than to decrease our numbers. Those are the facts and we have to accept them.
BrendanD19 says2016-05-28T16:47:32.8027578Z
No, those are a theory that was disproven in the 1890s. The problem is t overpopulation, it's the distribution of resources.
BrendanD19 says2016-05-28T16:50:00.5045046Z
We have enough resources for everyone to have an adequate life and fit into an area the size of Texas. The problem is that a few greedy a holes have far more than they need.
CJRD says2016-05-28T17:38:03.1533830Z
Please, disprove this theory, I know of several billion people suffering that would disagree with you. We may have enough resources, but they are not being distributed as needed, and even you agree. The problem goes far beyond homelessness and starvation too, gang warfare in third world countries, slave labour or child trafficking happen too, so many crimes are committed and it is almost impossible for the police to keep up with it all. Overpopulation is the root cause of many problems we have, such as disease or global warming and can be solved by lowering our need for resources, by in turn reducing our population. The global problems in the 1890s were much different than to those we face today, we are pushing ourselves to extinction by putting too much stress on our ecosystem. The Earth may have enough resources, but it cannot share them out in a sustainable manner.
BrendanD19 says2016-05-28T19:03:19.1437776Z
Actually we can distribute resources in a more sustainable manner, but it requires us in the wealthier nations to make sacrifices, and it would require the .1% of humanity to give up a great share of their wealth, is the wealthiest of the wealthy. This means that people in nations like the US will need to eat less meat, waste less food (we throw out huge amounts of still edible food in the US alone), abandon fossil fuels, take advantage of technologies like Hydroponics, recycle major resources to reduce the need for resource extraction (phosphorous, metals, mineral resources, etc.), build more durable products designed not to break after a year, redesign our cities to be more sustainable, etc. etc. In order to do this we will need to reject the notion that we are the masters of the earth, and accept that the earth is our master. The problems you point out like starvation, homelessness, gang wars, human trafficking, etc. These are problems that Oxfam international has stated are not natural occurrences, but the result of political failures. If you look at the countries that are responsible for the bulk of emissions (In total, not per year) the nations responsible are in North America and Europe, aka the Global North or the Western World. 20% of the Global population ar responsible for 70% of Global emissions. And it was disproven in the 1890s because Malthus predicted that earth's carrying capacity would be reached and mankind would go extinct by the 1890s. Moreover, those who promote neomalthusianism fail to show how population directly correlates with the problems that they claim to solve for.
BrendanD19 says2016-05-28T19:05:33.4450385Z
Test tubes and genetic modification are not the ways to go, those maintain this idea that we control nature, when nature really controls us.
CJRD says2016-05-28T21:40:02.6864089Z
I like your argument here, though I will stick to my guns on genetic modification, stem cell research, cloning and so on, we are nature, and therefore we can influence it both negatively and positively. I hope that one day all Humans can live as they choose without facing poverty, jobs can be filled up by robots, and those humans who do want to work can do so, I fear that this isn't possible, or is much more difficult to achieve with 7 billion + people on the planet with an increasing birth rate in developing countries. Since 1970 we have lost half the vertebrate species living in water, air and land, we are living at 3 times the capacity of the Earth, as well as producing waste and having to share the Earth with other creatures. I believe that all Humans deserve a more than adequate life, we cannot give that to 7 billion people, especially when 7 - child families live in ghettos in undeveloped countries, - we'll run out of time and go extinct by the time we make all these changes, and if we do we'll kill the Earth and it's ecosystems. As for Oxfam and countless other charities - I will admit that they do a lot of good, but so much money goes towards them that could be spent on space colonisation (which would be brilliant for providing for our population) and they really haven't even begun to make a dent in the work that needs doing, we're growing too fast. I can admit that political failures are the reasons why these issues crop up, but sometimes it's the responsibility of the public to make informed decisions, which they are often not capable of, this is where the government steps in and politics sets limits as to how many children a couple is allowed, if they are allowed any at all. I am also an advocate for selective breeding but that is besides the point. Reducing birthrates is the easiest way of reducing or solving these problems, we really don't have that much time before we go extinct, either way our population will decline, and I'd rather it be on our terms, not nature's It would be more efficient to tackle all these problems and reduce their severity through one action, especially in LEDCs where fertility rates are high. Also, thank you for providing me with an explanation on Malthus' theory and how it was disproved, maybe I should take this as a lesson from History and try not to repeat it.
CJRD says2016-05-30T12:07:52.2681083Z
Ok, I'd like to discuss my points further, many people voting here can't seem to comprehend or understand what controlling birth rates actually entails. There doesn't have to be a massacre of children, people can opt in or out, no killing. The system of limited child families in place in China could be used too, this question regards the entire Human population, not just the west. No one is deprived of anything, poor families who can't afford 1 child shouldn't be having 20 children just for them all to die and suffer of disease, starvation or war in the first few years of their lives, that is the truly disgusting part of all of this, suffering has no place in the societies of the thinking. To address UtherPenguin's point: Test tube babies can be utilised for this, we are now at a point in time where we can extend our lifespans, only a very small amount of countries are struggling to keep their numbers going up, and this is because of migration, not reduced birthrates. Jmeyann seems to have read my point but not understood it, these problems aren't caused by overpopulation, they are a side effect, and made worse by overpopulation, we can address these problems much more easily by having a smaller population, less resources would be needed to sustain them all too. (Though many of these problems exist because of overpopulation in the first place) Before you vote, please make sure you have an unbiased and educated viewpoint, and aren't spewing political rhetoric that you've heard your friends use, think for yourself.
maslow says2016-05-31T16:00:29.1925902Z
WOW.I have never seen so many people willing to show how stupid they are in public.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.