Population Control

[gimmepie]

Is it ethical for a government to take steps to manage the growth of the population it governs?

 

[Nah]

Given that overpopulation is kind of a serious problem, I would hope that governments would take steps necessary to curb population growth when needed. The Chinese iirc did or do it via their "only one child per household" policy, and I don't remember people taking major issue with it.

 

[Kostas]

I don't know if what I'm going to write is off-topic and you're referring only to overpopulation but here are my thoughts.

I'm talking about my country because I don't know how the other countries are. So, here there's no overpopulation at all, in fact, more and more people decide to don't give birth to kids mainly because of our economical situation and that's too bad. Since 2010 (when the crisis started), the number of population is decreasing, not that much though, but still, it's decreasing.

So, I think the government should do something about this problem. Give an extra income to the families who have kids. The more kids they have, the better the income will be. I know that this won't change much things but I do know that the main reason to this problem is the economical crisis because people think that they can't grow kids if they don't have enough money.

 

[Esper]

Depends on what you mean by "manage" but I can certainly see at least a couple ways that it would be okay.

Since there are countries with stable and/or decreasing population rates and there are countries with fast growing populations one thing that could be done is ease travel/employment/citizen restrictions so that people could go to where work is and help offset unbalanced populations (where the population is getting disproportionately old).

Allowing and ensuring that good sex education and contraceptives are freely available is another thing governments could do.

Given that overpopulation is kind of a serious problem, I would hope that governments would take steps necessary to curb population growth when needed. The Chinese iirc did or do it via their "only one child per household" policy, and I don't remember people taking major issue with it.

I was under the impression that overpopulation isn't so much the problem as it is the distribution of food, water, shelter, sanitation, education, etc. In other words, there is still plenty of space and resources, but that people don't share as well as they could.

 

[Majestic Electric]

I was under the impression that overpopulation isn't so much the problem as it is the distribution of food, water, shelter, sanitation, education, etc. In other words, there is still plenty of space and resources, but that people don't share as well as they could.

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.

As for space and shelter, that goes hand in hand with overpopulation. There is only so much space in the world to ensure people have a roof over their head. The more people there are, the harder it is to provide shelter, not to mention the closer we will be to native wildlife, and that can bring with it it's own share of problems.

I agree with you about the contraceptives and birth control, but unfortunate there are those who refuse to take them for religious reasons, so the government would need to give these people another option if they really want to fight overpopulation. They can't force birth control pills and similar measures on people; it says in the Constitution that people have the right to practice their religion freely, after all.

 

[Sir Codin]

Overpopulation is only a problem when the population consumes more resources than what can be regenerated, hence why it's called "overpopulation." The continued demand for resources exacerbates this problem because if we aren't careful, we will go into a period of scarce resources and this could cause billions of people to die within a short period of time due to lack of basic life necessities and the possible conflicts from different groups of people trying to control the few remaining resources that might be left.

Overpopulation is already enough of a problem in that it is often a precursor to a natural cataclysm that forcibly brings a population back down to the proper numbers that are supported by the environment's carrying capacity, but humans take it to a whole new level with the amount of consumption we partake in as it is causing damage to the environment that other keystone species live in that would take probably centuries of undisturbed or at best controlled remediation to correct. Our consumption is having a drastic effect on the climate (human activity is not the only cause for climate change, but it is a significant one) as it is changing at a rate far faster than what many species can adapt to, which is why we are now considered to currently be living in another mass extinction event. With the loss of keystone species comes the loss of other resources; for example, bees are important to the production of crops, if they go, that's a huge blow to food production as cross-pollination from bees is important for crop reproduction, hence why beekeeping is becoming more popular in recent years.

Overall, the solutions are a) limit consumption and or b) relocate a large portion of the human population to another habitat. That last one is hard because as of this writing, the only planet we have access to is the one we are all on at this moment.

Overall, I'm split as to whether or not the government should play a role in curbing overpopulation as I'm not too sure what you are getting at by that. If you mean that the state should take more measures to provide adequate sex education and access to contraceptives/birth control, my answer would be "yes, most certainly." If you mean that the state should force birth quotas, my answer would be "I'm not sure, probably not."

 

[Esper]

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.

As for space and shelter, that goes hand in hand with overpopulation. There is only so much space in the world to ensure people have a roof over their head. The more people there are, the harder it is to provide shelter, not to mention the closer we will be to native wildlife, and that can bring with it it's own share of problems.

I agree with you about the contraceptives and birth control, but unfortunate there are those who refuse to take them for religious reasons, so the government would need to give these people another option if they really want to fight overpopulation. They can't force birth control pills and similar measures on people; it says in the Constitution that people have the right to practice their religion freely, after all.

There is only so much of things, yes, but if I may use a small scale example to illustrate:

Are there any homeless people in your town? I'm guessing yes (there are in my town, in any case). I'm also guessing that there are buildings, houses, rooms, indoor spaces that aren't going used at all times: foreclosed houses, empty apartments, extra rooms in houses, (not to mention space that could be converted to these things). The homeless could live in those spaces, but people don't want to share them because they are afraid to (for various reasons). Lots of people (certainly not everyone) also have more than enough food in their fridge and cupboard to give some to a homeless person, but again we're afraid of losing out what little we have.

Now just expand that example to a world scale.

 

[Somewhere_]

the problem with population control (at a practical rather than moral viewpoint) is that it is impossible to predict future wealth generation, resource discovery and utilization, etc. We have had many, many times in the past where economists and others warn about overpopulation relative to food supply that turned out false followed by times where people scream about underpopulation and demand for immigration.

In short, i dont think there is enough evidence to prove overpopulation at the moment, nor is there a way to accurately measure what population we would need in the future. Feel free to debunk me here... these are merely conjectures.

Im not sure if its moral or immoral for the government to force people not to have babies, so I agree more or less with Sir Codin. I am against birth quotas and would rather see increased education, cultural change, birth control, etc.

 

[gimmepie]

the problem with population control (at a practical rather than moral viewpoint) is that it is impossible to predict future wealth generation, resource discovery and utilization, etc. We have had many, many times in the past where economists and others warn about overpopulation relative to food supply that turned out false followed by times where people scream about underpopulation and demand for immigration.

In short, i dont think there is enough evidence to prove overpopulation at the moment, nor is there a way to accurately measure what population we would need in the future. Feel free to debunk me here... these are merely conjectures.

China, India and other Asian countries are pretty good evidence that at the very least, some nations have a very real overpopulation issues.

Im not sure if its moral or immoral for the government to force people not to have babies, so I agree more or less with Sir Codin. I am against birth quotas and would rather see increased education, cultural change, birth control, etc.

I actually don't see what's so bad about having a birth quota.

 

[Nah]

I actually don't see what's so bad about having a birth quota.

It sort of seems like a short-term/bandaid fix. Birth quota simply forces people to not have many kids, but as soon as the quota is lifted when the population reaches an "acceptable level", people will just go back to breeding like oversized rabbits and then we're back to square one in like a decade or so. The stuff he mentioned is a more long-term solution that changes the people rather than forcing them to do it. Understanding why having 8 kids is kind of a bad idea is better than telling people they just can't have 8 kids because reasons.

 

[gimmepie]

It sort of seems like a short-term/bandaid fix. Birth quota simply forces people to not have many kids, but as soon as the quota is lifted when the population reaches an "acceptable level", people will just go back to breeding like oversized rabbits and then we're back to square one in like a decade or so. The stuff he mentioned is a more long-term solution that changes the people rather than forcing them to do it. Understanding why having 8 kids is kind of a bad idea is better than telling people they just can't have 8 kids because reasons.

Oh I agree with that, but education is a long term fix. A short term solution isn't something to be shunned whilst waiting for the long term solution to take effect.

 

[Somewhere_]

China, India and other Asian countries are pretty good evidence that at the very least, some nations have a very real overpopulation issues.

At the same time food production is skyrocketing and China and India's economies are gaining steam I think. In the US, the government actually has to pay farmers to sell only a small portion of their yield to prevent farm prices from dropping. We are missing out on a TON of food (that we dont need) as a result, so if the population explodes relative to the current food supply, this cap can just be lifted. I am fairly certain that most developed countries also do this to prevent crashes.

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

There's a double-edge sword in regards to overpopulation. Economies depend on large populations to keep businesses afloat with new jobs opening and new employments hired. If there's a shortage on population growth, then the economy suffers. There's also a need to keep making babies because of issues like this. Surnames and clans are like subspecies of different animals, they're at risk of going extinct if they don't reproduce enough babies to maintain their numbers.

Since not a lot of countries are cooperating to solve their population problems, the only solution to stop overpopulation in the easiest way possible is genocide, which is what Lysandre from Pokémon XY has been trying to do and why I praised him as the true hero in the series. However, genocide is largely frowned upon because killing is viewed as inhumane, even though poisoning the Earth and wiping out numerous organisms unintentionally is just as inhumane, or worse, than killing our own kind. We must now encourage people to commit suicide, abortion, and other degrees of murder to maintain our population.

 

[Corrin]

One way I could think is to move some people around? Like Canada is very underpopulated for the amount of land we have, we could afford to take more people.

 

[Hands]

We must now encourage people to commit suicide, abortion, and other degrees of murder to maintain our population.

Well why don't you lead by example?

I mean, take your family out back, your friends too and help the cause! When you're done you can rest easy knowing you've helped! Then you can complete your service by heroically sacrificing yourself!

Or did you just mean we should mindlessly kill people you don't know or love?

Genocide is wrong, no matter what a child's video game bad guy thinks or promotes.

Population control, although somewhat intentionally so, has existed in the United States since at least 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided. Plain and simple, abortion acts as population control.

It's not population control in the traditional sense. People aren't forced to have abortions, it's not some govt policy intended to keep numbers low.

Since then, a staggering 58 million "American" fetuses (millions more elsewhere) have been aborted. Furthermore, for rather controversial reasons, abortion has caused a significant decrease in crime nationwide. It has prevented our population from increasing out of control

Well I'm glad you can see the hardest choice many women (and men) will ever make in their life in such a black and white way

especially with rampant immigration already contributing to that.

How would mass immigration help lower population?

While fetuses (brown, black, and white alike) abound are being shredded to bits, immigrants are still arriving on our shores. Why would they not? This is demographic replacement.

Careful with this. As someone who formed half a decision to have an early termination I'll tell you right now there is no harder or more harrowing choice you will ever make. I've spent the past two years haunted by that choice because it isn't some elaborate scheme to help replace the whiteman. It's a multilayered decision to, realistically, stop a life from forming. There's undoubtedly others here who have made that choice and the last thing they need is someone reducing their pain and guilt as a shortcut to promoting a political narrative about low key "white genocide".

Our overall population, so to speak, is kept relatively down, while foreigners inundate our lands. I'm not saying this is problematic, but it is more than real, whether you like it or not.

Your lands? Are you native? Or are you the byproduct of immigration? Your whole country is founded on undocumented mass immigration from Europe, you really do not have a foot to stand on with this. Your culture is manifest destiny, it is rooted in migration.

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

Well why don't you lead by example?

I mean, take your family out back, your friends too and help the cause! When you're done you can rest easy knowing you've helped! Then you can complete your service by heroically sacrificing yourself!

Or did you just mean we should mindlessly kill people you don't know or love?

The latter.

Genocide is wrong, no matter what a child's video game bad guy thinks or promotes.

This is exactly what I meant about genocide being largely frowned upon because killing is viewed as inhumane, unless you're a misanthropist. Animals kill their own kind all the time, and weren't we told that we're animals as well? All of these non-killing solutions for population control will take too long to save the environment, and once we've reached our desired population number, it's already too late. Genocide provides the quickest way for a population decrease, as we've done this before to tons of animal species who are either endangered or extinct. Remember what movies and shows such as the Matrix and Parasyte said about humans being viruses.

 

[gimmepie]

The latter.

The moment you said this your entire argument was lost. If you aren't prepared to make that kind of sacrifice yourself - and you shouldn't be - you can't ask anyone else to make it.

 

[Hands]

Yes, Europeans did settle here.

So you're pro immigration in this context? Pro rampant immigration where the immigrants destroy the local culture, rape the lands, kill the people and force their own beliefs on those who survived?

Native Americans had the right to fight this so-called "undocumented mass immigration," and they did.

Ok cool so the new immigrants have the right to physically turf you out of your home if they can physically overpower you yeah?

The fight's result led us to where we are now, fair and square.

I don't really think poisoning water, giving people "gifts" full of smallpox, killing off the main food source and burning people to death in their sleep is fair but.

As per above, if you get your arse kicked by a Mexican who wants your house you're just going to give it to him right? I mean, he'd of won fair and square. Your home is now his by default yeah?

Since European settlers and others established an actual nation-state (the United States), don't we have the right to defend it?

Only you didn't. I mean that in both ways. You yourself have done sweet fanny adams to establish a nation state and certainly have no reason to feel so strongly for it. The settlers didn't either. They established numerous colonies, commonwealths and individual nations (Like Texas). You wouldn't truly become the nation state you are today until reunification after the Civil War. Obviously it wasn't that important to defend when a bunch of member states seceded because they weren't allowed to treat black people terribly anymore.

Regardless, this thread is about population control. Abortion (still population control, traditional or not) is black and white to those who studied its effects on crime and its causes. Talk about effective! So, while I'm not necessarily pro-abortion, it is quite eugenic. People like to hide that daunting fact.

Only it's not a fact and to say it is demonstrates an incredibly poor understanding of both abortion within Western Culture (the laws and steps around it too) and the concept and theory of eugenics. Eugenics is the theory of improving the Human condition and population through the manipulation or destruction of 'undesirable' genes. If every abortion was done solely on the genetic merit or flaws of the fetus then you'd have a point. Only it isn't. Please stop talking about things you clearly have zero grasp of.

P.S. I meant that "rampant immigration" replaces, or perhaps exceeds, the losses of abortion, thus causing our overall population to more or less stagnate.

Only this is absolute horsecrap too. The white population in 1970 (just before Roe vs Wade) was around 150mil. Up from 105mil in 1920. That's a growth of 45 mil. in 50 years. The 2010 census shows the white population of America is now at around 225mil. That's an increase of 75mil in 30 years. Abortion hasn't massively hampered white American growth. Growth of white Americans has increased exponentially since the early 70s.

I don't know why you said "black, brown, white" babies earlier, it's clear you aren't concerned about the number of ethnic minorities decreasing.

The latter.

Then your suggestion is moot. If you aren't willing to die for your ridiculous cause you cannot expect anyone else to.

 

[Hands]

I felt like there was no point in replying to Mr. Echo, but here goes. Since we have established laws (what a novel concept) against what was genocide (we're agreeing), no, the new immigrants cannot do that.

Also, the adjective "eugenic" and the noun "eugenics" have different meanings. Your description of the noun is accurate. However, abortion tends to be eugenic in nature. You see, this is something that appalls even Fox News and the pro-life crowd; no echo chamber here. Research the Donohue?Levitt hypothesis.

Last but not least, I never said that abortion hampers "white growth." It hampers growth. Hence, we do not have a massive population problem like other countries. We're not China; we might never need a one-child policy.

You do know people can read your previous replies right? They can read what you actively said.

 

[Sir Codin]

Oh I agree with that, but education is a long term fix. A short term solution isn't something to be shunned whilst waiting for the long term solution to take effect.

My issue with birth quotas personally is that I just don't feel like it's a moral thing to tell a family "oh, you can't have this child because our resources are strapped." On a practical level it seems to make sense, but if the couple wants to have the child this is seen as an oppressive slap in the face.

Some couples love having lots of children. I don't know or understand why on a personal level but they just do and I for one think that pro-choice means "pro-choice." Just like how I think abortion should be a choice, so too do I think having the child should be so as well. As much as I complain about the ineffective nature of voluntaryism, sometimes it has its place.