Solving the world's overpopulation problems?

[Aaron]

Effective, long-term solutions to overpopulation haven't changed. Poverty eradication is the best, cost-effective solution; insuring that people have access to adequate food and water, clothing, shelter, and medical care and the means to a dignified way of life (I'm almost quoting the UN Charter of Human Rights here). The cost up front has always been a fraction of the price paid in human carnage, but the planet is still under Darwinian rule, so don't expect any massive changes soon.

 

I fail to see how criminalizing childbirth beyond a one-child policy is not a measure of a police state. A well organized global police state could solve a lot of problems, including overpopulation, but it is unlikely that anyone except for authoritarian personalities swoons over the prospect of global dystopias.

 

 

Ahh... so I'm an authoritarian now or have you thought that perhaps I don't swoon over the idea, I just realize it's the only practical and humane solution. I am not saying it's the only solution either, only that it's the best solution I've thought of to date. It would be so nice if we could find another option, space travel and colonization of other worlds, etc. but the chances we'll be able to come up with those types of technologies before it's too late are slim, so I advocate something that seems natural.

 

In regards to eliminating poverty, perhaps you haven't been listening, but the problem is that if we continue to grow in population there will be no feasible way to eliminate poverty. Yes we could eliminate poverty now if we distributed resources globally, but for how long? At our current population growth we'll reach ten billion by 2050 and twenty billion around 2075. At twenty billion the entire world will be living at around the poverty levels found in Africa. There is not enough land or water on the earth to provide for everyone humanely... absolutely not enough. This isn't debated (by most) but agreed upon by the majority of scientists. We know what are maximum levels of sustainability are.

 

It's ironic, if one species threatens another species with extinction we have no qualms about culling their numbers to prevent the extinction, but when I say, perhaps we should prevent the world from being overpopulated through limiting the number of children people can have, then I'm an authoritarian who is bent on controlling other's lives. That's not the truth of course, it's just an attempt to throw a label on me to diminish the quality of my argument because you can't think of a solution that's better.

 

So your solution is to train yourself to live in a post apocalyptic world, so that you can survive the chaos, because you believe it's inevitable. I don't think it's inevitable and I am certain that if people understand the consequences of overpopulation that they will begin to see the need for change. Perhaps it will be voluntary, with people voluntarily limiting the size of their families, but perhaps we will need to institute laws in order to prevent the eventual overpopulation.

 

In my opinion everyone deserves to have a child if they desire one, but they do not deserve to have seven or eight if that puts the world at risk. This has nothing to do with authority, but with preventing people from harming others simply because they're selfish (and yes if you know the facts and still want to have a large family then you are selfish).

 

Aaron

 

edit- Also, even though the oil companies are against other forms of energy, there are a large number of people who are researching alternative means of energy. I know we are quite capable of coming up with solutions and I do not doubt for a minute that those solutions will be found and instituted before we reach the point of total oil and natural gas consumption. Something to keep in mind, we have no way of knowing that we've identified all the sources of energy in the world right now, it's quite probable and likely we'll find cheap alternative sources in the future, most likely within the next decade, so much of the doom and gloom stems from pessimism and a lack of faith in humanity. I think it's infinitely better to come up with a solution rather than gather guns, ammo, agricultural skills and run off and hide in the mountains. I do however think it would benefit everyone to learn how to grow their own food, I mean it's really a nice way of knowing that it's free of pesticides and such, so I wont knock that as a suggestion for life skills.

Edited November 6, 2011 by Twinner

[Aaron]

I'm heading out of town on a job for a couple of days. I'm taking my I-Touch with me, so I'll check back if I can find an internet connection near my motel, in the meantime I really think this thread is going in the right direction. The fact that no one agrees is always a good sign that we're addressing all the possibilities.

 

Aaron

[Encephalon]

Ahh... so I'm an authoritarian now or have you thought that perhaps I don't swoon over the idea, I just realize it's the only practical and humane solution. I am not saying it's the only solution either, only that it's the best solution I've thought of to date. It would be so nice if we could find another option, space travel and colonization of other worlds, etc. but the chances we'll be able to come up with those types of technologies before it's too late are slim, so I advocate something that seems natural.

 

Aaron, can you at least make a modest attempt not to read a personal attack into every question that I pose? In the same paragraph you stated that you didn’t want a police state but felt that criminalization of second childbirths was a plausible notion. Do you not see the incompatibility of those two ideas? The legacy of forced sterilization and state control of childbirth in China are the stuff of nightmares.

 

In regards to eliminating poverty, perhaps you haven't been listening, but the problem is that if we continue to grow in population there will be no feasible way to eliminate poverty. Yes we could eliminate poverty now if we distributed resources globally, but for how long? At our current population growth we'll reach ten billion by 2050 and twenty billion around 2075. At twenty billion the entire world will be living at around the poverty levels found in Africa. There is not enough land or water on the earth to provide for everyone humanely... absolutely not enough. This isn't debated (by most) but agreed upon by the majority of scientists. We know what are maximum levels of sustainability are.

 

I'm a geographer. I understand global carrying capacity. the forecasts you listed are plausible where there are no restrictions on growth. Perhaps you weren't listening to what I said, and that is, that modest redistribution of resources to eliminate poverty has been shown to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, which would manifest as a net reduction in global resource consumption.

 

It's ironic, if one species threatens another species with extinction we have no qualms about culling their numbers to prevent the extinction, but when I say, perhaps we should prevent the world from being overpopulated through limiting the number of children people can have, then I'm an authoritarian who is bent on controlling other's lives. That's not the truth of course, it's just an attempt to throw a label on me to diminish the quality of my argument because you can't think of a solution that's better.

 

Again, you’re getting overly defensive over a minor point, which you brought up, by the way. I wasn’t accusing you of authoritarianism. I was asking a legitimate question; how do you criminalize childbirth without utilizing the coercive powers of the state? I've already offered what I think is a better solution than coercive state policies, but there is no political will to implement them.

 

So your solution is to train yourself to live in a post apocalyptic world, so that you can survive the chaos, because you believe it's inevitable. I don't think it's inevitable and I am certain that if people understand the consequences of overpopulation that they will begin to see the need for change. Perhaps it will be voluntary, with people voluntarily limiting the size of their families, but perhaps we will need to institute laws in order to prevent the eventual overpopulation.

 

Before you dismiss the argument out of hand, you might consider that the Transition Town/ecovillage/sustainability/post-oil reconstruction movement is not a pipedream (you mentioned the term “Apocalypse,” not me). It offers a viable path for people who see the bankruptcy of a petroleum-driven consumer society and wish to forge their lives into accord with their environmental values and to maximize their chances for living peacefully in an era of economic contraction, which will include much less oil and electricity. As you correctly pointed out, the world’s petroleum spigots will not suddenly go dry; there will be oil for decades, but the price of recovering it from hard to reach areas will make it prohibitively expensive for most of the world’s population. Once it gets near $5/gal. in the US there will be another huge wave of personal bankruptcies as more and more people simply get priced out of the cost of transportation.

 

In my opinion everyone deserves to have a child if they desire one, but they do not deserve to have seven or eight if that puts the world at risk. This has nothing to do with authority, but with preventing people from harming others simply because they're selfish (and yes if you know the facts and still want to have a large family then you are selfish).

 

Aaron

 

edit- Also, even though the oil companies are against other forms of energy, there are a large number of people who are researching alternative means of energy. I know we are quite capable of coming up with solutions and I do not doubt for a minute that those solutions will be found and instituted before we reach the point of total oil and natural gas consumption. Something to keep in mind, we have no way of knowing that we've identified all the sources of energy in the world right now, it's quite probable and likely we'll find cheap alternative sources in the future, most likely within the next decade, so much of the doom and gloom stems from pessimism and a lack of faith in humanity. I think it's infinitely better to come up with a solution rather than gather guns, ammo, agricultural skills and run off and hide in the mountains. I do however think it would benefit everyone to learn how to grow their own food, I mean it's really a nice way of knowing that it's free of pesticides and such, so I wont knock that as a suggestion for life skills.

 

Sorry – see my previous paragraph. It sounds like you’re taking ascertainable facts and re-assigning them to the realm of unknowing. It’s NOT quite probable that we'll find cheap alternative sources in the future, most likely within the next decade. I’m not singling you out but we are witnessing a global reaction to economic and ecological contraction that is not unlike the “Five Stages of Grief,” the psychological reactions of patients to terminal illnesses first described by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross. First comes Denial, followed by Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance. I hear this all the time; the magical “They” will “Find” or “create” new forms of energy that will save us. That may have been true for the last 300 years, but it doesn’t mean that we can project that condition into the future, especially on a finite planet.

 

I’m placing my bet on solar-powered electrolysis in order to secure hydrogen supplies. But even if we were to perfect this technology, it will still take almost all the remaining fossil fuels to reconstruct a global energy grid. So, goodbye private transportation, industrial agriculture, heating and cooling. How do you deal with the politics of that?

 

"Anyone who pretends to offer a silver bullet solution to the collapse of industrial civilization is blowing smoke up your butt. The scammers who focus entirely on how to "get rich quick" off the dollar's demise or chaotic commodity prices are completely missing the point and greedily digging humanity's grave that much deeper. At the other extreme, false prophets who acknowledge the inevitability of collapse but naively assume it will pass by painlessly are living in a pseudo-spiritual LaLa Land." Michael Ruppert @

http://www.collapsenet.com/about-us/core-documents/collapse-prep-101

 

Anyone not interested in merely ruminating about what they hope will happen but actually checking the energy projections for themselves can find a ton of data at

http://www.theoildrum.com/

 

People seeking information on viable lifestyle adjustments to economic and ecological contractions can check out

http://www.postcarbon.org/

http://www.transitionnetwork.org/

http://www.ic.org/

Edited November 6, 2011 by Encephalon

[ralis]

 

 

 

 

Aaron

 

edit- Also, even though the oil companies are against other forms of energy, there are a large number of people who are researching alternative means of energy. I know we are quite capable of coming up with solutions and I do not doubt for a minute that those solutions will be found and instituted before we reach the point of total oil and natural gas consumption. Something to keep in mind, we have no way of knowing that we've identified all the sources of energy in the world right now, it's quite probable and likely we'll find cheap alternative sources in the future, most likely within the next decade, so much of the doom and gloom stems from pessimism and a lack of faith in humanity. I think it's infinitely better to come up with a solution rather than gather guns, ammo, agricultural skills and run off and hide in the mountains. I do however think it would benefit everyone to learn how to grow their own food, I mean it's really a nice way of knowing that it's free of pesticides and such, so I wont knock that as a suggestion for life skills.

 

 

The problem with alternatives is that there are none that provide the same amount of energy output as the carbon molecule. That is a fact and when oil resources are on the downside of the production curve, civilization as we know it will radically change.

Edited November 6, 2011 by ralis

[Aaron]

The problem with alternatives is that there are none that provide the same amount of energy output as the carbon molecule. That is a fact and when oil resources are on the downside of the production curve, civilization as we know it will radically change.

 

That's possible, but it's also possible (and imo likely) that with the technological advances we're making, that we'll find solutions before the apocalypse happens. My argument isn't that we wont feel a crunch, but rather that it wont be the end of civilization, will civilization change, perhaps, but not to the extent that we devolve into manimals (m+animals) because of it. Anyways I'm out, so I hope by the time I get back everyone has come to a solution to the overpopulation issue, then all we need to do is let the United Nations know.

 

Aaron

[Birch]

That's possible, but it's also possible (and imo likely) that with the technological advances we're making, that we'll find solutions before the apocalypse happens. My argument isn't that we wont feel a crunch, but rather that it wont be the end of civilization, will civilization change, perhaps, but not to the extent that we devolve into manimals (m+animals) because of it. Anyways I'm out, so I hope by the time I get back everyone has come to a solution to the overpopulation issue, then all we need to do is let the United Nations know.

 

Aaron

 

 

Aaron, as far as I can tell, the 'overpopulation issue' is a projected problem based on current population numbers and current growth and so while it's probable, it's not inevitable. Acting as if it is inevitable (and not, for example, self-limiting) could IMO lead to some really heinous stuff, such as your imagined law-enforced child-limit policy. The TTC mentions (to badly paraphrase) that if you can get the family 'right' then you can get the rest 'right'.

 

It doesn't seem to mention what 'right' means and I suppose the invitation here is that 'right' is to be examined in context and through experience. We have quite well-documented results on various 'policies' when it comes to population control (including genocide and one-child policies). Shouldn't we be able to look at them all in turn and in context and decide what's 'right'? Oh, and not just 'right' for some of us and not those other people.

[lazy cloud]

What if the person who could develop a new technology/innovation/energy solution/agricultural breakthrough is not destined to be a first born/only child?

(do not get hung up on my use of the word destined)

 

Eric Goldschein's Nov 4,2011 article about our world's condition in 2100, has the world's population at 10 billion

with 80% living in cities. 5 sub saharan Africans for each European. 40% less production of rice and corn. Zero oil,

natural gas(which will be used at a much faster rate than oil), and coal.

It also states that a UN report puts the number for a manageable population at 6.2 billion.

Edited November 6, 2011 by lazy cloud

[Birch]

What if the person who could develop a new technology/innovation/energy solution/agricultural breakthrough is not destined to be a first born/only child?

(do not get hung up on my use of the word destined)

 

Eric Goldschein's Nov 4,2011 article about our world's condition in 2100, has the world's population at 10 billion

with 80% living in cities. 5 sub saharan Africans for each European. 40% less production of rice and corn. Zero oil,

natural gas(which will be used at a much faster rate than oil), and coal.

It also states that a UN report puts the number for a manageable population at 6.2 billion.

 

 

But you said 'destined'. So what are you trying to get at? What makes people achieve and develop breakthroughs?

 

The idea of a 'manageable population' makes me shudder. What does 'manageable' mean??

[lazy cloud]

But you said 'destined'. So what are you trying to get at? What makes people achieve and develop breakthroughs?

 

The idea of a 'manageable population' makes me shudder. What does 'manageable' mean??

 

If the UN used the word "sustainable" instead of manageable, is it less of a shudder? What is the function of the UN?

Isn't it a very rare few individuals that ever make the types of breakthroughs that effect the lifestyle of the masses?

Someone like a Steve Jobs, Thomas Edison,

is there such a thing as "destined" anyways?

[Birch]

If the UN used the word "sustainable" instead of manageable, is it less of a shudder? What is the function of the UN?

Isn't it a very rare few individuals that ever make the types of breakthroughs that effect the lifestyle of the masses?

Someone like a Steve Jobs, Thomas Edison,

is there such a thing as "destined" anyways?

 

 

That's quite a few questions you have in one post! How about we make a thread for each of them?

 

Did the UN use the word 'sustainable' rather than 'manageable'? If so, what was meant by it? By the UN. Not what is understood.

 

I don't know what the function of the UN is. I really don't. It looks from where I'm sitting like a big mess. Most things do:-)

 

Effecting the lifestyle of the masses = quite some thing. It's a good topic IMO:-)

 

I don't know anything about 'destined'. Nothing.

[gendao]

A few pockets of western society will still maintain a higher quality of life, but it will be more akin to living along the lines of what is considered poverty level in the states now. The poor in the western world will be living very much as rest of the world, in other words shanty towns and scraping by each day. Infant mortality will most likely be high, perhaps even as high as 25% die before the age of 2. And childhood mortality will be about the same with a high number of children dying from disease before they reach their teens.

 

Now with this knowledge in our minds and 35 years to plan for it, one would think that we would get off our asses and try to make some real changes in the way we're living life. I blame much of this on religious organizations and capitalism.

 

I think the easiest and most practical solution is to actively slow down population growth. This doesn't mean that we become a police state per se, but rather that we place limits on the number of children a person can have, that number being 1.

Actually, we don't even have to go that far for starters. All we have to do to start with is stop ENABLING overbreeding with TANF and other welfare incentives. And simply make people responsible for raising their own kids.

 

I mean, what if every woman was like Octomom and was supposedly azz broke, yet still chose to have 14 kids?

 

Well, if every woman was just an Octomom on average...then you get a 3rd World slum like Africa. It's just kind of unavoidable with plain common sense.

Chinese authorities thus consider the policy as a great success in helping to implement China's current economic growth. The reduction in the fertility rate and thus population growth has reduced the severity of problems that come with overpopulation, like epidemics, slums, overwhelmed social services (such as health, education, law enforcement), and strain on the ecosystem from abuse of fertile land and production of high volumes of waste.

Fact is, this has been a significant factor in their "economic miracle" revival out of decades of Communist misery - along with more free-market capitalism.

"It's a way of having something that is all yours," said Alain Suarez, who along with his family has opened a professional looking "guarapera," or sugarcane juice stand, in Santa Isabel de Las Lajas, about 25 kilometers (16 miles) from the central city of Cienfuegos up a bumpy byway lined by tall fields of sugar cane.

 

The bright-faced 23-year-old points to a small pizza stand across the street from his establishment, and another that sells sandwiches. "All these businesses that have opened up recently have given the town new life."

 

While he speaks to a reporter, a dozen schoolchildren come over to buy drinks, and a huge press that Suarez's father concocted with an old American electric motor whirrs from a back room, sending sugarcane juice running down a metal trough and through a little window into a bucket near the front counter. The children pay 4 cents each for a cup, and go off happy.

 

"The town has improved," Maya said. "There's more to buy, the quality of life is better. People are satisfied."

 

Gonzalez said the number of paladares in the city had soared from just two before the reforms to between 40 and 50 today.

 

"From last year to this, you can just see the city changing," Gonzalez said. "It is a city that is prospering."

It's an extreme policy for sure - but really just a temporary reactionary measure to Mao's previous edict to breed like rabbits to "build up the labor force" (EPIC FAIL) - that is already being relaxed now and will probably eventually no longer be needed.

 

Had a Taoist been in charge to begin with, though - he would never have encouraged people to overbreed and then needed to correct the population bubble formed by this later with a population contraction. People would have had a more sustainable # of kids, which would have also naturally decreased with time too.. So, the less intervention, the better - just let Nature take her course!

Edited November 7, 2011 by vortex

[Encephalon]

That's quite a few questions you have in one post! How about we make a thread for each of them?

 

Did the UN use the word 'sustainable' rather than 'manageable'? If so, what was meant by it? By the UN. Not what is understood.

 

I don't know what the function of the UN is. I really don't. It looks from where I'm sitting like a big mess. Most things do:-)

 

Effecting the lifestyle of the masses = quite some thing. It's a good topic IMO:-)

 

I don't know anything about 'destined'. Nothing.

I just wanted to squeeze in that "manageable" in an ecological sense just means that the population does not exceed the carrying capacity of a given ecosystem. 6.2 still seems a little high and I think it assumes no disruptions in oil and resource flows. Non-oil carrying capacity for a planet this size, assuming total topsoil salvage (no desertification, salination) and access to water is about 2 billion. That's enough to party with on Friday night, isn't it?

[lazy cloud]

-K-, Manageable was the word used by the UN report. The manageable number of 6.2 billion is based on current conditions and extends to the year 2100.

Factored in is a decrease of the use of carbon based fuels of 5% a year beginning in 2040. The report also does not consider any major calamities to occur,

no substantial increased global warming, no alien invasions, no world war 3, etc. and that we will only have our one planet to draw resources from.

[Enishi]

The most to-the-point way to reduce world population would be a global agreement, ratified by the UN, to limit the birth rate to 2.0 per woman. Over time, the population would gradually decrease and stabilize.

 

Of course, implementing such a rule in reality, on a global scale, would be the hard part...

[Birch]

Ok. Thanks! Does the UN ratify means of both not getting above the manageable amount and getting to the target amount? And/or does it ratify intent only? And are all people represented in the UN? I think from memory they aren't.

There are lots of ways those circumstances could impact what ends up happening. Does the UN specifically "ban" certain types of population-reduction (because in all cases, it looks like reduction is what the goal is)? Are there consequences for nations that don't do things certain ways? Are there quotas?

 

Sorry for all the questions. I guess i should go find out:-)

[lazy cloud]

-K-,

My, that is a lot of questions in such a short post!

Un-Fortunately , I have a crazy busy day today and tuesday too, or is it two for tuesday? whichevers...I digress.

For now all I can say with even a small amount of confidence is that Un is a useful prefix.

Howevers! If you are Un-able to find answers, I will try to have a few answers on or about Wednesday.

[ralis]

double post

Edited November 7, 2011 by ralis

[ralis]

Actually, we don't even have to go that far for starters. All we have to do to start with is stop ENABLING overbreeding with TANF and other welfare incentives. And simply make people responsible for raising their own kids.

 

I mean, what if every woman was like Octomom and was supposedly azz broke, yet still chose to have 14 kids?

 

Well, if every woman was just an Octomom on average...then you get a 3rd World slum like Africa.

 

 

You sound like Ronald Reagan with his Cadillac driving welfare mom speech. That speech was racist in tone and was used to cut benefits to poor people and also release institutionalized mental patients out on the streets. Comparing "Octomom" to other women is just nonsense.

 

Had a Taoist been in charge to begin with, though - he would never have encouraged people to overbreed and then needed to correct the population bubble formed by this later with a population contraction. People would have had a more sustainable # of kids, which would have also naturally decreased with time too.. So, the less intervention, the better - just let Nature take her course!

 

A real Taoist would have nothing to do with being an autocratic ruler. However, you may have autocratic aspirations from what I read in your posts.

 

China is still ruled by the Communist Party. All the major means of production and banks are owned by the party. Further, each region, village etc. is ruled by two officials. Local and Communist.

 

Obviously, you have no feeling or compassion for Americans losing their jobs to .50 cents/hour Chinese sweat shop laborers. I am puzzled as to why you are so insistent on being a shill for the establishment (Koch Bros. et al), destruction of the environment, the destruction of the middle class and greed. Given that this is a Taoist forum, that doesn't make sense. Why not join your kind on the many objectivist Ayn Rand forums.

[Encephalon]

Interpreting global phenomena through the narrow prism of American partisan politics requires a level of stupidity that can only be achieved with regular and consistent practice.

[ralis]

Interpreting global phenomena through the narrow prism of American partisan politics requires a level of stupidity that can only be achieved with regular and consistent practice.

 

Would you further elaborate on that point?

 

Thanks

Edited November 7, 2011 by ralis

[Encephalon]

Would you further elaborate on that point?

 

Thanks

 

There are those who believe that all phenomena that washes over the globe can be explained through the partisan pettiness that characterizes the American political spectrum, which today has become about as long as the average penis, but not quite as useful.

[Aaron]

Aaron, as far as I can tell, the 'overpopulation issue' is a projected problem based on current population numbers and current growth and so while it's probable, it's not inevitable. Acting as if it is inevitable (and not, for example, self-limiting) could IMO lead to some really heinous stuff, such as your imagined law-enforced child-limit policy. The TTC mentions (to badly paraphrase) that if you can get the family 'right' then you can get the rest 'right'.

 

It doesn't seem to mention what 'right' means and I suppose the invitation here is that 'right' is to be examined in context and through experience. We have quite well-documented results on various 'policies' when it comes to population control (including genocide and one-child policies). Shouldn't we be able to look at them all in turn and in context and decide what's 'right'? Oh, and not just 'right' for some of us and not those other people.

 

Hello K,

 

I meant that if nothing is done to slow down the population growth, then the overpopulation of the world will be inevitable. If we don't want this to be inevitable, then the first thing I would recommend is to do what Blasto suggested and set up initiatives that reduce poverty globally and encourage contraceptives, but if that didn't seem to be able to solve the problem then other things might need to be done, including legally limiting the number of children that a person is allowed. I want to emphasize that I do not advocate abortion in any way shape or form, so my suggestion does not imply that if someone does have a child accidentally that they would be criminally negligent or be required to abort a child, what I'm saying is that people who intentionally had children would be held accountable in some way, maybe not even with jail time but higher taxes or something to that effect. The fact is currently you get a tax break for each child you have, which seems absurd to me (as does paying for education systems when I have no child of my own, but that's a different topic entirely.)

 

I would never say that children should go hungry because their parents can't provide for them for instance, but I see full well the problems that could arise from instituting laws, that's why I think it would be much more beneficial for governments to advocate birth control methods that are humane, such as contraception and also the benefits of having a smaller family. I think we've actually decreased the average family size in the United States, not positive, but the key would be to reach out to those people in areas of the world where population growth is a big problem and educating them about the benefits of a small family. I would not think any kind of laws concerning family size would be needed until there was clear evidence that nothing else was slowing down population growth.

 

Of course we could wait for the "inevitable" apocalypse that is going to occur because of the apparent collapse of western civilization due to a lack of fossil fuels, I'm sure billions will die as a result of that and then no more population problem (that was sarcasm by the way, the lowest form of humor, but sometimes it still feels right.)

 

Aaron

Edited November 7, 2011 by Twinner

[joeblast]

Actually, we don't even have to go that far for starters. All we have to do to start with is stop ENABLING overbreeding with TANF and other welfare incentives. And simply make people responsible for raising their own kids.

 

I mean, what if every woman was like Octomom and was supposedly azz broke, yet still chose to have 14 kids?

 

Well, if every woman was just an Octomom on average...then you get a 3rd World slum like Africa. It's just kind of unavoidable with plain common sense.Fact is, this has been a significant factor in their "economic miracle" revival out of decades of Communist misery - along with more free-market capitalism.It's an extreme policy for sure - but really just a temporary reactionary measure to Mao's previous edict to breed like rabbits to "build up the labor force" (EPIC FAIL) - that is already being relaxed now and will probably eventually no longer be needed.

 

Had a Taoist been in charge to begin with, though - he would never have encouraged people to overbreed and then needed to correct the population bubble formed by this later with a population contraction. People would have had a more sustainable # of kids, which would have also naturally decreased with time too.. So, the less intervention, the better - just let Nature take her course!

Sometimes simple logic is a bit too much for people Government solutions to Government-created problems are more disastrous than if they simply left the entire thing alone to begin with, yet if you mention such a thing, you're a discompassionate bastard for "wanting there to be low wage earners" or asserting that endless amounts of children that cant be provided for by those who produce them will necessarily lead to 3rd world status - nevermind that these curves are natural outcomes; some are responsible and driven to succeed while others are quasi-content to complain of the morass they wallow in and never do a damned thing to clean the shit from their shoes. Apparently that fact is never realized by some, namely that incentivizing laziness produces more laziness - if only we could hand a college degree and a high paying job to everyone, why, the world would be great!

 

Nope, sorry - oversubsidizing an outcome wont necessarily lead to more of that outcome, and it might just jeopardize the outcomes of those who legitimately pursue. Making sure everyone has a college degree simply means that a college degree is now the new high school diploma - except that its costs are torso, shoulders, and head above. "Making sure that everyone has a well paying job" isnt seen as unrealistic by some...who dont even understand that ever higher minimum wage laws wind up producing high unemployment especially amongst young people, then we wonder why there is an entire swath of disaffected, unemployed youth who have little job history from which to spring forth and actually earn more.

 

You cant up and bestow aptitude - which is why opportunities can be presented but outcomes simply cannot be guaranteed.

 

Some people wish the country, planet operated differently than it does. Keep on wishing - a hundred people swimming against a strong current in a river will not change its flow.

 

You can wish enlightenment for all sentient beings, and you can even vow to work endlessly until that becomes a realization - but there is no "spiritual government" who can bestow "spiritual privilege" upon those who have no interest in doing the actual work to get there. If there was, it would water down what enlightenment actually means. It is a simple correlation.

[Aaron]

Sometimes simple logic is a bit too much for people Government solutions to Government-created problems are more disastrous than if they simply left the entire thing alone to begin with, yet if you mention such a thing, you're a discompassionate bastard for "wanting there to be low wage earners" or asserting that endless amounts of children that cant be provided for by those who produce them will necessarily lead to 3rd world status - nevermind that these curves are natural outcomes; some are responsible and driven to succeed while others are quasi-content to complain of the morass they wallow in and never do a damned thing to clean the shit from their shoes. Apparently that fact is never realized by some, namely that incentivizing laziness produces more laziness - if only we could hand a college degree and a high paying job to everyone, why, the world would be great!

 

Nope, sorry - oversubsidizing an outcome wont necessarily lead to more of that outcome, and it might just jeopardize the outcomes of those who legitimately pursue. Making sure everyone has a college degree simply means that a college degree is now the new high school diploma - except that its costs are torso, shoulders, and head above. "Making sure that everyone has a well paying job" isnt seen as unrealistic by some...who dont even understand that ever higher minimum wage laws wind up producing high unemployment especially amongst young people, then we wonder why there is an entire swath of disaffected, unemployed youth who have little job history from which to spring forth and actually earn more.

 

You cant up and bestow aptitude - which is why opportunities can be presented but outcomes simply cannot be guaranteed.

 

Some people wish the country, planet operated differently than it does. Keep on wishing - a hundred people swimming against a strong current in a river will not change its flow.

 

You can wish enlightenment for all sentient beings, and you can even vow to work endlessly until that becomes a realization - but there is no "spiritual government" who can bestow "spiritual privilege" upon those who have no interest in doing the actual work to get there. If there was, it would water down what enlightenment actually means. It is a simple correlation.

 

 

Thanks for presenting a good example of how intolerance is still alive and well, just basking under the guise of politics. They're poor because they don't want to work. They choose to be poor, because they can get public assistance. No offense, but your understanding of the situation is indicative of someone who has grown up in a middle class family, never had to worry about school clothes, education, or even where your next meal has come from. When I say the entitled of America, this is what I'm talking about, not the poor. You believe that you "worked" hard for everything you got, but did you actually work that hard? You got a degree because, either you parents paid for it, or you were able to take a loan out for it, but even before then you were living a privileged life that allowed for all of these things to occur.

 

The fact of the matter is that many people who are down and out, have very few options to help them get on their feet again. The government doesn't provide much assistance anymore, that's an actual fact. Just look at the millions of homeless families out there today. Cool fact for the intolerant (I would also say psuedoracists) that like to talk about too much government assistance for the poor... right now in America 19% are living in poverty. One if freaking five people!!! And you have the audacity to say that the government is providing people with TOO MUCH assistance? I have no problem listening to this crap that you guys are spewing, but don't put smileys and all this other shit thinking it's funny.

 

I actually grew up in poverty. I remember I went to my guidance counselor in high school and he said that there wasn't a chance for me to go to college, so he set me on the track for technical school. I believed that mo-fo, you know, and I quit school, because I thought what was the point, why go to technical school to learn to be a boat builder, when I can just go work lawn care and earn the same amount, I didn't need an education for that. So that's what I did, I quit school at the age of fifteen and mowed lawns for the next several years, working my ass off, full time, watching the fortunate kids going off to play baseball or skateboard. But hey, it taught me the value of discipline and hard work, something us poor folk need to learn.

 

But guess what, one day I woke up and thought, that middle-class mo-fo was full of it. I went and got my GED and I did go to college. I went to a community college for two years, then transferred to a university. I actually earned two degrees and graduated in the top 5% of my class. I wasn't stupid, I didn't lack potential, I was just a kid who was told he couldn't do something because he was poor. I was someone who listened to people like you, who told me over and over that I was poor because I was lazy. I was poor because I wanted to be poor. You guys make me sick to my stomach. If you knew the amount of hate you create and fester in others, I don't think you'd be able to sleep at night, or maybe you would, because it's hard for me to believe someone that spouts this kind of crap is really that oblivious or ignorant.

 

Aaron

[thelerner]

Here's an interesting TED video on overpopulation and possible solution from a person who describes themselves as neither optimistic or pessimistic but a 'possiblists'. Its fairly optimistic and there's some reason to be.

 

The elephant in the room, China, has been successfully cutting its population. The U.S has an even to negative population growth depending on how you treat immigrants. Russia,Europe & Japan have (I believe) a negative population growth. The video address the expansion in 3rd world countries.

 

 

 

For me its about 3 things..Land, Water and energy. We've got the land, we've found some cheap natural gas that should last (the U.S) about maybe 2 generations, hopefully long enough til we perfect renewable energy resources, water..that maybe tougher, but we waste more then we use. With conservation and some tech we could do well.

 

Ultimately the 3rd world will have to solve its own problems. We can suggest and offer help, but there governments and people will have to make the right and hard choices if they're going to thrive.

Edited November 8, 2011 by thelerner