Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think that it'd be interesting to have a debate on the efficacy of population limitation as a means to a better world.

    The issue seems to be rather taboo, with most people dismissing it as a 'fascist' policy without truly considering it. Though I haven't looked into it in any depth, it seems that having a smaller population would go a long way to solving many of the world's problems: poverty, unemployment, &c. It seems logical that, with less people on the planet, each person would be able to enjoy a larger chunk of natural resources, and hence have a better quality of life.

    Of course, it's all very well talking about it, but could such a policy ever be successfully employed, without resorting to China-style force? A total paradigm shift seems necessary. Perhaps families should be invariably portrayed as mother, father, two children, and any deviation as completely absurd. Within a few generations, the word 'family' might completely change its definition in accordance with this.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I doubt that a policy would be necessary for population control, nor would I suggest an 'average' and 'normal' family with which all others would be compared and ridiculed, or any other plans.

    However long it may take and however messy it may be, I think that nature will take its course and limit our population in its own way. Simply put, our population will become too excessive to be supported and this will be controlled and corrected by the death of those without support. As I said, perhaps quite gruesome and heartless, but we should look to education and limiting ourselves through knowledge, rather than enforcing a rule that is just dying to be broken and fought against.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm sure at least a couple of these could be practical ?

    1) Sterilise people once they've had two kids....till the problem is sorted.
    2) Beheading the illegal immigrants will ease the problem too.
    3) Provide euthanasia when it's requested,
    4) Raise the time limit for abortion.
    5) Kill the erm.. sorry let's just skip this one.
    6) Don't provide aid to Sudan, Ethiopia, Mozambique, etc.
    7) Over 85s shouldn't have a right to the welfare state.
    8) Sterilise those with genetic disorders.
    9) Bring back the death penalty.
    10) Adopt the Sharia law. I've heard it's good for population control too...

    Meh...I'm bored and I have time to waste to think about solutions to all the world's problems.....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The birthrate falls as countries develop, North America, Europe and Japan all have birth rates below the replacement level, as developing countries get richer their birth rates should fall.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I like fascist policies, at least they've got something to work towards.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Adarshster)
    7) Over 85s shouldn't have a right to the welfare state.
    To stop them copulating and reproducing incessantly in their free time?

    (Original post by CJHackett)
    I think that nature will take its course and limit our population in its own way. Simply put, our population will become too excessive to be supported and this will be controlled and corrected by the death of those without support.
    I like that solution - genuinely. It is the free market way to 'ration' goods - "from each as they choose, to each as they are chosen."

    On the other hand, people have been predicting for centuries - see Thomas Malthus - that the supply of food cannot keep apace with the population and that mankind is destined to "the perpetual struggle for room and food"; and whilst there's some starvation in poorer nations, that isn't really to do with inadequate food supply - more to do with bad government, Western subsidies to agriculture retarding local farmers &c.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    I like that solution - genuinely. It is the free market way to 'ration' goods - "from each as they choose, to each as they are chosen."
    I don't, it's a barbaric, uncivilized solution.

    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    ...whilst there's some starvation in poorer nations, that isn't really to do with inadequate food supply - more to do with bad government, Western subsidies to agriculture retarding local farmers&c.
    Actually, the main factor is a lack of technology in Third World countries, and a lack of infastructure, and bad government as you say, Western subsidies is a relatively minor factor.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    To stop them copulating and reproducing incessantly in their free time?
    To save the government some money by not spending it on those who don't do anything for the country's economy anymore. I mean, let the old man suffer arthritis, who cares. But the teacher who suffers from it needs to be given treatment.

    ^^^Some parts of that may not be entirely serious....
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agamemnon)
    I don't, it's a barbaric, uncivilized solution.
    Those are just adjectives; they're not arguments.

    (Original post by Agamemnon)
    Actually, the main factor is a lack of technology in Third World countries, and a lack of infastructure, and bad government as you say, Western subsidies is a relatively minor factor.
    Western subsidies to (especially European) farmers are, I think, the primary cause of the "lack of technology." African agriculture is undermined by the 'dumping' of goods in years of European abundance - and the consequent driving out of business of African farmers - whilst the resultant starvation (because there's little or no competitive native agriculture in abundant years) in years of European scarcity is directly attributable to the inclinations of Western governments to perpetuate the problem by erecting tariff barriers - which stop European consumers buying non-EU produced food which would undercut the price of EU produced food, for example. Thus, there's no 'profit' for the remaining agricultural firms to invest in labour-saving capital - so they're compelled to retain inefficient, labour-intensive methods.

    The same argument is equally applicable to infrastructure in a broader sense; if there's no foreign currency coming into a nation from wealthy countries who are buying its cheap products, then the poor nation cannot afford the necessary 'infrastructure' - electricity, hospitals &c - which they must buy from developed countries.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The problem isn't Europe or NA. It's Africa and Asia. They are breeding like rabbits and people ****ing wonder why they are starving?

    The best thing I say we do is stop giving them aid. Stop treating them. Stop giving them food. All we tell is to stop having to many children. It's economics. Don't ****ing have more children then you can afford to feed.

    Or we can go to Africa promise them a "HIV vaccine" that makes sterile. All problems solved. The Earth is saved and we stop millions of people from starving.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Governments discreetly release, a more deadly form of Bird Flu? Then only give the population the vaccine when the population starts to level out at about one billion.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    I read somwhere that as nations become more developed and educated, the people of those countries have fewer children as aesult, which goes (and will go) some way to adressing the amount of population growth currently.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lamenter)
    The problem isn't Europe or NA. It's Africa and Asia. They are breeding like rabbits and people ****ing wonder why they are starving?

    The best thing I say we do is stop giving them aid. Stop treating them. Stop giving them food. All we tell is to stop having to many children. It's economics. Don't ****ing have more children then you can afford to feed.

    Or we can go to Africa promise them a "HIV vaccine" that makes sterile. All problems solved. The Earth is saved and we stop millions of people from starving.
    I thought you were a left-winger?

    Anyway, with genetic modification and new technology, the amount of food we can produce grows ever larger.

    As countries develop, the birthrate falls, we need to do more to help these countries develop, the problem is it that they are not developing, indeed, Africa is poorer than it was in the 1980s.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lamenter)
    The problem isn't Europe or NA. It's Africa and Asia. They are breeding like rabbits and people ****ing wonder why they are starving?

    The best thing I say we do is stop giving them aid. Stop treating them. Stop giving them food. All we tell is to stop having to many children. It's economics. Don't ****ing have more children then you can afford to feed.
    Do you know any thing of economics. Chidren = money. They can work the land look after you in old age and if ur very lucky be sold to madonna
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LGoddard)
    I think that it'd be interesting to have a debate on the efficacy of population limitation as a means to a better world.

    The issue seems to be rather taboo, with most people dismissing it as a 'fascist' policy without truly considering it. Though I haven't looked into it in any depth, it seems that having a smaller population would go a long way to solving many of the world's problems: poverty, unemployment, &c. It seems logical that, with less people on the planet, each person would be able to enjoy a larger chunk of natural resources, and hence have a better quality of life.

    Of course, it's all very well talking about it, but could such a policy ever be successfully employed, without resorting to China-style force? A total paradigm shift seems necessary. Perhaps families should be invariably portrayed as mother, father, two children, and any deviation as completely absurd. Within a few generations, the word 'family' might completely change its definition in accordance with this.
    When you consider populations in terms of "limitation" you make the decision to choose and select; be it by gender, geographical region, class (the list goes on).

    Once this programme is instituted, could it not simply be hijacked by an immoral political majority to be used as a tool for ethnic/genetic cleansing?

    You cannot make assumptions about the most suitable or appropriate family size, because this is a Eurocentric position; family "suitability" is relative. Whilst in the 1990s in the UK the "average" family was considered to be two parents (male and female) with 2.4 children (thus the name of the famous sit-com).

    However, in the Amazon basin the Yanomamo tribe live in familial collective groups of usually two hundred. The dynamics of their culture/society mean that the family groups have to remain this size to allow for a wide marriage pool and also to assure political stability between other tribes. To make a "suitable" or limited size of family, their socio-cultural way of life would crumble.

    Furthermore, due to the tie that exists between political clout and economic power, the "fewer people = more resources per head" calculation is inherently flawed because that assumes the resources are equally shared. Even now, the Church still retains in this country large chunks of land whilst I own none; but are we not your blueprint of a 'suitable' population size?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agamemnon)
    I thought you were a left-winger?

    Anyway, with genetic modification and new technology, the amount of food we can produce grows ever larger.

    As countries develop, the birthrate falls, we need to do more to help these countries develop, the problem is it that they are not developing, indeed, Africa is poorer than it was in the 1980s.
    I'm not a left-winger. I'm so off the compass that I can't be described has right/left or centre. I don't even know how describe my views.

    Africa will never develop until they manage to remove their head out of their asses. They vote of stupid leaders because of ethnic reasons. They have dictators. They easily believe in foolish rumours (raping babies and virgins cures HIV :rolleyes: ). If white people try to help them by giving good advice like stopping corruption they get accused of Neocolonialism.

    **** that entire continent. They are digging their own graves. Why give them more help? Africa has been getting to much attention. Look at Asian countries that were at the same or even worse state then African countries. They managed to surpass them in every single way. Expect for course for the HIV Infected people. Africa is still number 1. Obviously your going to get some crazy nutters out there defending African countries by blaming the very same countries that are doing a lot to help them in the first place.

    (Original post by ali567149)
    Do you know any thing of economics. Chidren = money. They can work the land look after you in old age and if ur very lucky be sold to madonna
    Let's see. Your poor and in desperate need of money. What to do? Oh yeah. Have more children. I mean after all the fact that it's really expensive to take care of children with all of expenses they bring. Forcing them to work so that the parent can have money is cruel and disgusting.

    To paraphrase what Jerry Rawlings (former leader of Ghana) said. If you can't afford to feed your self and your children. Don't ****ing complicate the situation by having more children.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Solution : Soylent Green.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I suppose the idea of having less people present on planet Earth is a very selfish one and it only works for greedy people who want no further enlightenment (nobody knows who will be the 'wise man' amongst the offspring and by limiting their birth you destroy their opportunity to exist) and who wish to live a limited Paradise.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Catsmeat)
    When you consider populations in terms of "limitation" you make the decision to choose and select; be it by gender, geographical region, class (the list goes on).

    Once this programme is instituted, could it not simply be hijacked by an immoral political majority to be used as a tool for ethnic/genetic cleansing?

    You cannot make assumptions about the most suitable or appropriate family size, because this is a Eurocentric position; family "suitability" is relative. Whilst in the 1990s in the UK the "average" family was considered to be two parents (male and female) with 2.4 children (thus the name of the famous sit-com).

    However, in the Amazon basin the Yanomamo tribe live in familial collective groups of usually two hundred. The dynamics of their culture/society mean that the family groups have to remain this size to allow for a wide marriage pool and also to assure political stability between other tribes. To make a "suitable" or limited size of family, their socio-cultural way of life would crumble.
    Firstly, policies would be implemented on a state-by-state basis. While the child-limit for the UK might be two, whoever governs the Amazon basin could implement a completely different policy (or, indeed, not implement one at all).

    However, the policy would apply comprehensively and equally to the entire population of the state in which it was implemented. This would be enshrined in law, so as to avoid the possibility of ethnic cleansing.

    With these provisos, a government employing the policy wouldn't be 'choosing' or 'selecting' at all; they would be treating all within their jurisdiction equally.

    (Original post by Catsmeat)
    Furthermore, due to the tie that exists between political clout and economic power, the "fewer people = more resources per head" calculation is inherently flawed because that assumes the resources are equally shared. Even now, the Church still retains in this country large chunks of land whilst I own none; but are we not your blueprint of a 'suitable' population size?
    I agree: population limitation wouldn't solve the problem of inequal distribution of resources. However, I rather fail to see how it could make it any worse (aside, perhaps, from decreasing the likelihood of a proletariat revolution). There would still be more resources per head.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by N_n_N)
    I suppose the idea of having less people present on planet Earth is a very selfish one and it only works for greedy people who want no further enlightenment (nobody knows who will be the 'wise man' amongst the offspring and by limiting their birth you destroy their opportunity to exist) and who wish to live a limited Paradise.

    So thinking about the enormous demand placed on Earth by 6.5 billion humans is selfish? It's just not people living in America or Europe causing the problems. People in Africa are cutting down trees and killing endangered animals. It's not selfish to want a smaller population size. It's selfish to want a bigger one.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.