World Population

[reuben_tate]

Okay so I've been thinking about the population of the world and I think it is a bit of a problem and its only going to get worse since the earth has only so much resources.

I am not implying that we should be like Hitler and get rid of all the weak, the old, and the handicapped. I think that instead of killing people that already exist(which is a insane idea), we should try to prevent people from getting born and I don't mean abortions.

What I mean is that we need to have and enforce laws restricting the number of children each mother can give birth to. If you look on the interner or in an almanac, you will find that some countries have a average rate of 6 or 8 children per mother. Now thats a problem.

So my question is how can we control the world population?

[Rayje666]

enforcing laws is already hard enough as it is...i dont think we need more laws prohibiting people from having kids, instead we should be like Hitler and kill off all the weak and useless

[reuben_tate]

Originally Posted by Rayje666

...we should be like Hitler and kill off all the weak and useless

Define "we". Do you meen the state? The people themselves?

[Rayje666]

Originally Posted by reuben_tate

Define "we". Do you meen the state? The people themselves?

"we" as in everyone, we dont need the retarded, the crippled or sickos that cause problems


PS you spelled 'mean' wrong

[fido123]

Humans destroyed natural selection however our society couldn't handle it. IMO we should all go back to living off the land with no docters and farm but this won't happen lol.

[inflames07]

No single country can control the WORLD population. The United States tries to protect the freedom for all people and to spread democracy, not take away the basic rights of reproduction. Telling Brazil to stop having kids is absurd.

[reuben_tate]

We should try to promote things that kill people. Such as war, extreme sports, and the death penalty.

[inflames07]

Originally Posted by reuben_tate

We should try to promote things that kill people. Such as war, extreme sports, and the death penalty.

Sorry, but you're an idiot.

[reuben_tate]

Originally Posted by inflames07

Sorry, but you're an idiot.

This is in a Critical Thinking forum, not a flame-everyone-because-you-don't-like-their-opinion-and-post-things-that-are-off-topic-so-you-can-get-a-higher-post-count
forum.

Originally Posted by inflames07

No single country can control the WORLD population. The United States tries to protect the freedom for all people and to spread democracy, not take away the basic rights of reproduction. Telling Brazil to stop having kids is absurd.

There is a thing called the United Nations.

[inflames07]

Originally Posted by reuben_tate

This is in a Critical Thinking forum, not a flame-everyone-because-you-don't-like-their-opinion-and-post-things-that-are-off-topic-so-you-can-get-a-higher-post-count
forum.



There is a thing called the United Nations.

Only a handful of countries are in the United Nations. The UN only allows a certain number of countries to join. Also only a smaller amount of countries are permanently in the UN, I believe 5 or so are voted in every couple of years to be apart of the UN for a limited time.

Edit: P.S. Think before you post garbage like this

We should try to promote things that kill people. Such as war, extreme sports, and the death penalty.

[Tasselfoot]

China has laws that only allow a family to have 1 child. Fairly certain it hasn't worked out very well.... has resulted in many newly born girls being killed by the parents or abandoned, as their culture puts almost all of the honor in boys.

Also, the US encourages families to have more children, with all of the welfare programs and food stamps and assistance programs.

Not very familiar with any other countries laws though. But, this isn't something that could actually work. And as said... it would have to be some kind of United Nations type treaty agreement or world policy that was adopted. Even then, many countries do not have the resources to enforce something like this... the majority of over-populated countries are closer to 3rd world than 1st world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...al)_per_capita
China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, and the Philippines are not even in the top100 of Per Capita GDP. Brazil, Russia, and Mexico are over 50. The only countries in the top25 out of the 12 most populated countries are the USA and Japan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population

And those 12 countries make up almost 62% of the world's population. So, even with the birthing laws in place, China still has almost 20% of the world's population and over 1.3 billion people.

We should try to promote things that kill people. Such as war, extreme sports, and the death penalty.

That's a real great stance.... I would like to volunteer you to be first in line to enactment of your plan.




edit: inflames.... there are over 190 countries in the UN. basically, any country worth anything is in the UN.

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by inflames07

Only a handful of countries are in the United Nations. The UN only allows a certain number of countries to join. Also only a smaller amount of countries are permanently in the UN, I believe 5 or so are voted in every couple of years to be apart of the UN for a limited time.

You're thinking of the UN Security Council. The nations in it change periodically, but there are five permanent members (which I think are the same ones with veto powers?). I know USA and Russia are two, but I can't think of the other three. China possibly, then France and Great Britain?

[devonin]

You're thinking of the UN Security Council. The nations in it change periodically, but there are five permanent members (which I think are the same ones with veto powers?). I know USA and Russia are two, but I can't think of the other three. China possibly, then France and Great Britain?

The membership of the UN is fixed. Any nation that is recognized as a legitimate country and can afford to pay the dues is allowed membership. The Security Council is the US, UK, France, Russia and China, and the thing they can do that other countries can't is flat out veto any legislation put before the UN as a whole. Also, people seem to misunderstand the purpose of the UN fairly often. They were never intended to be world peacekeepers, they were never intended to try and fix the social and political problems in individual countries.

Pretty much the entire purpose of the UN in forming after WW2 was to be an active force in preventing WW3. They made the military conquest of countries illegal, and are supposed to ensure that it doesn't happen. Internal strife, civil war, civilian protests none of that is supposed to be the UN's concern (Which is why things like Rwanda happened, and why nothing is being done in Colombia right now)

So my question is how can we control the world population?

The best answer is still the one you ruled out in your opening statement. Though uh, yeah, Hitler wasn't intending to "control the world population" nor did he do what he did by "killing the weak, the old, and the handicapped" You've completely misrepresented Hitler's purpose, targets and methods, and he is an example that has nothing whatsoever to do with your question at hand.

We should try to promote things that kill people. Such as war, extreme sports, and the death penalty.

This is an absurd and grossly poor line of reasoning. That's probably the -worst- way to "control the world population" that I've seen, and that includes in comparison to things like "randomly killing people via lottery"

This thread is on very thin ice, as being a topic that doesn't really have much of a purpose for discussion. You can't reconcile freedom and human rights with strict orders controlling what these people can do vis-a-vis their own bodys.

A much better question would be "what sorts of things can we do to make it so our population problem isn't actually a problem"

[Zythus]

UN, in my opinion, is only effective at its hunger and relief scheme. They aren't allowed to raise arms, thus, not so effective in conflict resolution. Also, a huge part of the making of US was because the League of Nations weren't doing so hot with their proposed laws, trying to prevent wars.

Population is a problem and it will forevermore be. You can lack and be overruned by people. Some complain, minorities mostly, that they need more people in their band to preserve culture. Others complain they have too many and attempt to limit birth, China for example. The mortality rate will, perhaps, always, exceed the death rate. Your only realistic hope of ridding the overruned is by a natural disaster, epidemic, or war. Like the earthquake SheeChuan, China last week that killed over 11,000 people, only a calamity of some sort will regulate population so that Death > Birth.

[sumzup]

An interesting trend is that civilized countries (1st world) have much better (as in not exponential growth) population pyramids and growth rates than 3rd world countries. It seems to me that once poverty and hunger and lack of education are taken care of, the problem would take care of itself and result in less families with 12 kids.

[YoshiSlayer]

Originally Posted by reuben_tate

We should try to promote things that kill people. Such as war, extreme sports, and the death penalty.

Mod Says: Watch your mouth in this forum, or it will be shut for you.

Since when in history was it ok to kill random people? What happens when your family is killed? I doubt you will think your "ideas" will be great then. Before you even attempt to come up with an idea think of how it would affect your life before you decide it is a worthwhile thought.

[foilman8805]

Originally Posted by Zythus

UN, in my opinion, is only effective at its hunger and relief scheme. They aren't allowed to raise arms, thus, not so effective in conflict resolution.

Their power is in diplomacy, and their ability to levy economic sanctions. The latter can stop a growing country dead in its tracks, and once the targeted country realizes its economy is being choked off, the diplomacy kicks in.

There is conflict resolution without arms and violence. Though, in my honest opinion, arms and violence puts people in line way faster than economic sanctions and diplomacy.

[reuben_tate]

Originally Posted by YoshiSlayer

I honestly think that you, Reuben, will go no where in life, let alone have a life, if you think killing people is fine.

Since when in history was it ok to kill random people? What happens when your family is killed...

Did I say I want to kill random people? No, I said I want to promote things such as war. Humans have been at war with each other for a long time and it seems to work as one of those things that kill people faster.

Try imagine if there was never war, never natrual disasters, no death penalty,etc... The population of the planet would be at astronomical rates.

What I meant to say when I said we should promote things like that was that making birth laws is not working and we need to find a alternative solution.

[Mans0n]

Honestly, i Agree with the fact that; There all always people dying everyday, every hour. And Death > Birth.

So it pretty much evens everything out. and if there was to be an overwhelmingly large amounts of birth to occur, good 'ol mother nature will step in and kill a ****load of people. So ironically we should be happy earthquakes happen, and hurricanes and what not. Not saying i want to happen. Just that they help keep population down. dont mean no disrespect.

[foilman8805]

Is it ironic that a recent magnitude 8 earthquake in central China has been estimated to have killed 60,000+ people, and a cyclone in Burma (Myanmar) has potentially killed upwards of 80,000 people all in the last week?

Is this good enough for you?