• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Forum moderator applications are now open! Click here for details.
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

Population Control

25,439
Posts
11
Years
And to mention.. If they were to go through with a depopulation tactic, anybody making 6 figure income and more are basically safe, the rest will be removed from the planet. Depopulation would remove those that can't support themselves, those that leech off others to support themselves, those that barely get by but support themselves, and those that are successful and rich but not "wealthy". Hell, even families that make hundred's of thousands would be killed. Really, it's all a money game and who's the most fortunate as to whether they would survive or not.

The real question is... Is if they were to do something like depopulating the planet, how would they approach it? Deadly gas in the air? radiation? Militias gunning us down? Camps? Nuke?

When people are talking about population control, they usually don't mean genocide.
 

ShinyUmbreon189

VLONE coming soon
1,461
Posts
12
Years
When people are talking about population control, they usually don't mean genocide.

So they would do some crazy shit like China? I mean we could start killing infants, they do that for population control...
At this point now, population control would most likely result to genocide given the billions we have on this planet. Or post apocalyptic war with ourselves until the population drops enough. Then they could maintain the population. But really, all it would do is make it easier for those in power to control the remaining population. Nothing would change, other than a strict surveillance of society since the remaining would be easier to track.
 
25,439
Posts
11
Years
So they would do some crazy shit like China? I mean we could start killing infants, they do that for population control...

...What?
I'd love to see a source showing that the Chinese government was actively killing babies.

At this point now, population control would most likely result to genocide given the billions we have on this planet. Or post apocalyptic war with ourselves until the population drops enough. Then they could maintain the population. But really, all it would do is make it easier for those in power to control the remaining population. Nothing would change, other than a strict surveillance of society since the remaining would be easier to track.

At this point now, population control would probably be the same thing it always is. A legal limit on the number of children a family can have and/or better sex education and access to birth control. The majority of governments also are not evil entities seeking to enslave the population - even the US government which is arguably the worst it's been since pre-Lincoln times isn't doing anything that crazy.

You don't live in a dystopian movie. Nobody is going to start wars for population control or anything like that.
 

ShinyUmbreon189

VLONE coming soon
1,461
Posts
12
Years
...What?
I'd love to see a source showing that the Chinese government was actively killing babies.

They used to do it but it was outlawed by the government in 1993 I believe. It used to be a policy for population control.

You should really study your history.

You don't live in a dystopian movie. Nobody is going to start wars for population control or anything like that.

Never said I was and never said they did. Again proving no valid point.
I was just saying if it were to happen..
Why have a thread about population control and not have the idea of a government pushing for it if they pleased?
Just because I say "we're fucked" either way, doesn't mean I'm saying they're gonna kill us. It means no matter what, if we don't change our lifestyles over time mankind will doom it's planet. Seriously, if we continue at this increasing rate eventually our resources will run out. In our lifetime? No. But it would eventually happen.
So population control would just slow down the process.
 

killer-curry

Oro.........?
2,521
Posts
8
Years
I think government has an important role to actually handle the population growth. Too many growth will cause over population and too less birth rate will cause the country to have more senior citizens and less productive teenage and future generation citizens. The imbalance of population can lead to serious consequences in terms of economic growth ,supply and demand balance, etc.

So far, there are countries that have been enacted policies for controlling or encouraging population growth such as "One child per family" policy in China and Japan who also trying to encouraging the male and females to get mated for giving birth more children.

In the end, ethical issue might be still a thing but I think the government had to sacrifice it to save the population from getting overgrow or shrink.
 

Pinkie-Dawn

Vampire Waifu
9,528
Posts
11
Years
5,983
Posts
15
Years
Well according to Yuta, the low birth rates in Japan aren't really a huge deal due to how overpopulated the country is.

I really don't think that's what the video said. Basically it's point was that CNN misrepresented a Japanese government report that 40% of Japanese are virgins where the report actually said 40% of single people in Japan are virgins - which is a lot more understandable.

I don't know if population control is necessary in most parts of the world. Maybe in Africa, where population growth rates are still high.
 

killer-curry

Oro.........?
2,521
Posts
8
Years
Africa is in quite undeveloped country, they cant really manage well their population growth. The majority people over there are in poverty, unemployed and some are even having food issue. Also, overpopulation in undeveloped countries causing the possible migration of people to some countries which are quite developed and they staying there to work because in their own countries job become more scarce and low paying.

In Malaysia, the population of the foreign workers is more than the population of the third major race, Indian. Besides, these workers are mostly come from Myanmar, Bangladesh, India, some even from Africa and many more.

In the end, Overpopulation still a great issue for undeveloped countries besides the possible migration of people oversea to find a better job, the food and goods are also getting more demand and the supply depletes more than they can produce in the country, and will cause malnutrition in some area.
 
19
Posts
6
Years
  • Age 30
  • Seen Apr 10, 2023
You should only think about the Ethic when the choice you are given does not have a big importance.
A massive growth of population is unsustainable, so, unless we rapidly get new technology to be able to colonize space, we will have to stabilize population, some people think it will happen naturally, I hope so, but if it doesn't happen, we will have to do something, and thinking ethic here is irrelevant.
 
748
Posts
14
Years
So as far as ways to stabilize population growth, my idea to put birth control in the water, and only the financially stable people that can afford to buy normal water, can then reproduce, didn't go well with anyone else...
Overpopulation is still only a problem for countries going through the 2nd phase of development, but it usually stabilizes. But, I wonder if the world can handle the overpopulation of many African countries at once.
 

Alexander Nicholi

what do you know about computing?
5,500
Posts
14
Years
To be honest, overpopulation is a problem for the reasons you mentioned above. If food is plentiful, then why is World Hunger still a thing? Why is it still hard for some people to get fresh, clean water? Resources are probably not as plentiful as you think.
World hunger, clean water and even finer things like economic opportunity are not universal, basically. You're missing the part that involves taking resources out of the ground and working them into a consumable state, which is literally all of the human effort that isn't happening in some places to make it happen. The reasons for why people aren't instinctually driven to work and provide for everybody across the board basic needs like that are innumerable, and very situational on several scales, from personal all the way to global. This is the practical reason why universal necessities have never been a thing.

We do know, most certainly, that it isn't happening, and we also know, most certainly, that there are way more than enough resources for us to survive with the 'burden' of a larger world population. 70% of the earth's surface is water, and if we really have to we have the technology to desalinate that water as needed to stay alive. The world's breadbasket is sitting right in North America, providing a huge agricultural contribution that we definitely couldn't subsist without. The veritable jungles of the Amazon, and places like Borneo and Papua provide a lot of cover for the carbon we emit, and we're making excellent progress on curbing that so we don't inadvertently destroy ourselves with pollution.

But that leads in well into the main point about resources: it's not their presence or lack thereof, but rather what we do with them and how we handle them. Nothing here exists in some suspended state, or vacuum where you can say there are X resources and Y people, and there's any amount of math you could write in your lifetime that adequately accounts for that and would be at all intelligible to laymen.

It's not just a matter of efficiency, but also sustainability. We want lumber, but we need a lot of trees to persist in the ecosystem. When you bring concerns of fossil fuels out of the town hall and into the real world, things become a lot harder to deal with because you can't just belly up all of the world's oil production at a moment's notice because it's bad. It is bad, but it's not as simple as declaring it bad and expecting it to get its mess together. If you could actually stop all oil production tomorrow, it would cripple the world economy in a way that is unimaginable compared to past depressions. Such drastic things are a far graver, and much more predictable disaster than the hypothesis that overpopulation is going to destroy the earth, or our habitat or whatever. No, the planet will be fine, and the only way we'll be killing ourselves via habitat destruction is by taking poor care of the resources we have.
 
1,824
Posts
5
Years
  • Age 37
  • Seen Nov 4, 2018
Not giving media attention to people like Octo-mom and the moronic show "17 kids and counting" would be a good start too. That's just warranting the behavior, I feel. It should never be viewed as a good thing.

I honestly wouldn't mind a restriction for just one or two children, at all. I'm not really looking to ever have children, so it's not like it would bother me. And if by some chance I did, it would only ever be just one.
 
68
Posts
5
Years
  • Age 30
  • USA
  • Seen Nov 11, 2018
Is it ethical for a government to take steps to manage the growth of the population it governs?

It depends on how it is done. Personally, I don't want laws like in China which restricted people to having one Child.

Government does need some control over the population, but how it goes about it matters. At the very least, the Government should try and maintain a fertility rate of 2.1, but put in laws and programs that influence to that rate without forcing people into a straight jacket.

From wikipedia, but it summarizes some information from Crisis in the Population Question.

"The book deals with the consequences of continued low fertility in Sweden. Sweden was threatened by population decline and thus reduced productivity and standard of living. The authors advocated a series of social reforms in order to overcome this problem."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_in_the_Population_Question
 
Last edited:

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen
4,307
Posts
15
Years
If it's really severe, like in India or China, I think maybe some measures might be warranted, though these need to be well vetted to make sure they don't end up causing unintended consequences (like families abandoning, killing, or selling children for financial reasons as happened in China). Anywhere else, no.

I will never support any kind of hard limit on children because I believe people have a right to procreate as long as they're able and willing to do what's necessary to support a family. I'm also not sure I buy the idea that overpopulation is this huge impending disaster that's going to affect everyone, and even if it was, I think there are other solutions we can pursue that won't infringe on basic human freedom.
 
Back
Top