Over Population

[schmenke]

Well, as a start, a simple standard question to wannabe parents could be:

"Does either of the following apply to your current home:
A) Is is on wheels?
B) Are vehicle parts strewn about the front lawn?
C) Is a toilet featured as a lawn ornament?"

If "yes" is answered to any of the above, manditory sterilization.

[AndySpeed]

I had this conversation with one of my work colleagues before I came back to University. I was trying to make a point that the world is becoming overpopulated and that there are only finite resources, and she simply focussed on the fact that she had 2 children, may want more, and that you can't take away people's freedoms like that.

But the act of good governance is sometimes telling people what they can and can't have, for the greater good and comfort of the population. Sometimes this telling is direct, as in a dictatorship, but it can also be achieved by making it harder to have children and taking away the benefits. But I feel that it has to be done.

I'm currently studying for a postgraduate degree in sustainable water management, and I have a particular interest in water resources. It is [wildly] speculated that in the future wars could be fought over water because as we get a larger population there is more stress, especially with climate changing and people living in water stressed areas (Las Vegas anyone). How can we feed this population increasing exponentially when we struggle to irrigate our crops, move water hundreds of miles and consume yet more natural ecosystems and landscapes to build yet another housing estate (SE England).

It's ridiculous. You have to control the breeding of people in certain stressed areas or we're just going to end up having ****ty little lives in the future.

The thing is, many governments don't want to encourage a stabilized population as more people = more economic development. In a capitalist world, how can you win the votes if your economy isn't continually developing/building debt/having a strong workforce.

I am a strong supporter of the Optimum Population Trust - see http://www.optimumpopulation.org/

[race aficionado]

I had this conversation with one of my work colleagues before I came back to University. I was trying to make a point that the world is becoming overpopulated and that there are only finite resources, and she simply focussed on the fact that she had 2 children, may want more, and that you can't take away people's freedoms like that.

But the act of good governance is sometimes telling people what they can and can't have, for the greater good and comfort of the population. Sometimes this telling is direct, as in a dictatorship, but it can also be achieved by making it harder to have children and taking away the benefits. But I feel that it has to be done.

I'm currently studying for a postgraduate degree in sustainable water management, and I have a particular interest in water resources. It is [wildly] speculated that in the future wars could be fought over water because as we get a larger population there is more stress, especially with climate changing and people living in water stressed areas (Las Vegas anyone). How can we feed this population increasing exponentially when we struggle to irrigate our crops, move water hundreds of miles and consume yet more natural ecosystems and landscapes to build yet another housing estate (SE England).

It's ridiculous. You have to control the breeding of people in certain stressed areas or we're just going to end up having ****ty little lives in the future.

The thing is, many governments don't want to encourage a stabilized population as more people = more economic development. In a capitalist world, how can you win the votes if your economy isn't continually developing/building debt/having a strong workforce.

I am a strong supporter of the Optimum Population Trust - see http://www.optimumpopulation.org/

Good one.
You are an example of the younger generation looking at taking charge and helping save our planet.
thanks!

[Rollo]

But if people aren't allowed to have kids, what are they going to do? An awful lot of our culture and society is based on people reproducing.

Sad but true:
In a lot of countries which don't possess social security and/or an old age pension system, people are supported in their old age by their children.

In my opinion we need to ban increasing population for a while. The UN should bring on a temp sterilization program. Any country that can't support itself should be banned from further populating. The countries that can sustain population should require permission to bear children.

Is your opinion well formed? If this is primarily about an environmental footprint problem then I ask you, which of the following circumstances do you ask for temporary sterilization?
- A couple living in Lincoln Nebraska who lives in a three bedroom house and drive a Dodge Ram OR a couple living in Abuja, Nigeria who live in a one room hut?

If you bear in mind that the average American eats roughly 12 times the calories that the average Nigerian does, and therefore has a far bigger environmental footprint in growing the food in the first place, are you now suggesting that the first appropriate target should be the United States?

[ioan]

Why don't you all post your photo's of yourselves and your offspring so we can determine whether they are allowed to procreate again.

We will leave intellect out of this as it is apparent that the only complaint is the ugliness of the people in question.

I guess it would be difficult to post a picture of one's intelligence so I agree we should leave intelligence out of this discussion!

[Daniel]

The police could do us some good in the UK by ridding us of some of those protesters in London

[ioan]

I had this conversation with one of my work colleagues before I came back to University. I was trying to make a point that the world is becoming overpopulated and that there are only finite resources, and she simply focussed on the fact that she had 2 children, may want more, and that you can't take away people's freedoms like that.

But the act of good governance is sometimes telling people what they can and can't have, for the greater good and comfort of the population. Sometimes this telling is direct, as in a dictatorship, but it can also be achieved by making it harder to have children and taking away the benefits. But I feel that it has to be done.

I'm currently studying for a postgraduate degree in sustainable water management, and I have a particular interest in water resources. It is [wildly] speculated that in the future wars could be fought over water because as we get a larger population there is more stress, especially with climate changing and people living in water stressed areas (Las Vegas anyone). How can we feed this population increasing exponentially when we struggle to irrigate our crops, move water hundreds of miles and consume yet more natural ecosystems and landscapes to build yet another housing estate (SE England).

It's ridiculous. You have to control the breeding of people in certain stressed areas or we're just going to end up having ****ty little lives in the future.

The thing is, many governments don't want to encourage a stabilized population as more people = more economic development. In a capitalist world, how can you win the votes if your economy isn't continually developing/building debt/having a strong workforce.

I am a strong supporter of the Optimum Population Trust - see http://www.optimumpopulation.org/

I have to say I agree, and as much as this may sound selfish it isn't as I will most probably make it to the end of my life without huge problems however future generations will not have this luck anymore unless something is done soon.

And it has to start with kicking out the stupid politicians who think that the only economically sustainable model is with more and more kids in order to support more and older people every day.

I think that money being handed out to people with the only scope of encouraging them to procreate is a huge mistake.

My personal belief is that 2 children per family should be the limit (and I don't think is a bad case) while certainly 1 children per family (like in China) would be optimum for at least a few decades.

Couple this with responsible food politics and you get a highly sustainable society and environment.

What we are doing right now, producing 2 x the needed amount of food while more than 60% of the worlds population is living under the poverty limit and 50% is starving is not viable from any POV.

[ioan]

As a non biological father of my adoring son, my wife and I went through an excruciating process where we were asked many personal questions by government agencies to see if we were fit to adopt.

It made me wonder why all other biological parents weren't asked the same questions - and of course I shuddered with the thought of big brother imposing himself that way . . . . and on the other hand, you so many times see parents treating kids in the most disgusting way and harming them physically and psychologically from the very beginning that you wonder how on earth they had the right to be parents of those innocent children.

Thank goodness we have free will (OK some times . . . .) but it is a big issue.

And I agree with fousto, we are an overpopulated planet and we should work as a team to lower our numbers and that will happen when my signature is implemented and parents will be assured that their children will live long enough so that they don't have to over multiply. And of course I am talking of the so called 'third world countries" here, not Joe Shmoe from (put your city here) that has 5 children that are covered by welfare and etc, etc. etc,

mokin:

[Brown, Jon Brow]

In my opinion we are grossly overpopulating the planet. I had a guy ask me to smoke elsewhere when I was standing at a golf tourney. He was standing there with his fat ugly wife and 5 kids. Over populating and bringing ugly kids into the world with parents of disproportionate physical statures.

Easy there Adolf!

[Roamy]

Sad but true:
In a lot of countries which don't possess social security and/or an old age pension system, people are supported in their old age by their children.



Is your opinion well formed? If this is primarily about an environmental footprint problem then I ask you, which of the following circumstances do you ask for temporary sterilization?
- A couple living in Lincoln Nebraska who lives in a three bedroom house and drive a Dodge Ram OR a couple living in Abuja, Nigeria who live in a one room hut?

If you bear in mind that the average American eats roughly 12 times the calories that the average Nigerian does, and therefore has a far bigger environmental footprint in growing the food in the first place, are you now suggesting that the first appropriate target should be the United States?

In a perfect world should population control be established world wide, then there would be no preference as to location. All would be required to do their part. With that being said Nigeria should be required to bring there country up to a standard whereby children would have a fair chance at a healthy and prosperous life. The number of children being born into horrendous conditions in this world is staggering and very sad. The world is neglecting this growing problem and it is obviously being ignored. We certainly should set a example here in this country but the world should as a whole. Abundance of food and money should not dictate the acceptance of overpopulating. Economic growth spurred by overpopulating is going to bite us in the ass one day. Do I think the Neb. family should be given preference over the couple in the Nigerian hut - certainly as would people in may other countries. But that cannot be the determining factor as many children are born into horrible conditions in this country. We all need to own up to the problem. But we won't and so it makes for interesting threads on the forum.

glauistean while a photo is not in the cards, I can assure you that my family has done their part. Many on this forum can take pleasure to know this family tree is done. And I can take pleasure knowing I will have no grand children enduring what is coming to the future generations of this world. I have very little faith in people addressing any of the problems that are multiplying so rapidly.