3 ms·

its really hard to have a serious conversation about population control. It's just one of those topics that immediately label you as some kind of crazy murderin

its really hard to have a serious conversation about population control. It's just one of those topics that immediately label you as some kind of crazy murdering nut-job in the eyes of lots of people. Honestly, it may not have been super effective for certain reasons, but China's child limit laws are about the least crazy solution I can think of.

Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
Population control probably isn't necessary. No one (informed) thinks that the human population is going to grow out of control. It's likely to become stable at around 10-11 billion within 100 years. Birth rates are declining in developed countries and the undeveloped world is rapidly developing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow...
- QAPereo 9y ago
  It isn’t necessary only if massive inequality persists, and our tech just plain saves us all. What a crazy fucking bet when the stakes are the future of human civilization.
- darkmarmot 9y ago
  Honestly, evolution says that it won't. Long-term, breeders will "out-compete" those that limit their household size. Without external political forces or wholesale genetic engineering, we're in for a rough ride.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - shezi 9y ago
    There are various examples where breeders did not outcompete, and instead a population settled on a low birth rate. Any animal that is not predator-dominated, really, but the best-known examples are New Zealands Kakapo [1] and Panda bears [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakapo#Breeding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakapo#Breeding [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_panda#Reproduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_panda#Reproduction
- ptha 9y ago
  Hans Rosling has done some research and ted talks about this: https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_...
- mac01021 9y ago
  > stable at around 10-11 billion within 100 years but is that small enough or soon enough to avoid environmental catastrophe?
CaptSpify 9y ago
I think many people probably like the idea, but are worried about implementation. Example: I think everyone should be sterilized at birth, but it should be reversible at no cost to them. But I can't think of a single government that I'd trust to enact this policy correctly without falling into a Eugenics system.

Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago

Population control probably isn't necessary. No one (informed) thinks that the human population is going to grow out of control. It's likely to become stable at around 10-11 billion within 100 years. Birth rates are declining in developed countries and the undeveloped world is rapidly developing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow...

QAPereo 9y ago
It isn’t necessary only if massive inequality persists, and our tech just plain saves us all. What a crazy fucking bet when the stakes are the future of human civilization.
darkmarmot 9y ago
Honestly, evolution says that it won't. Long-term, breeders will "out-compete" those that limit their household size. Without external political forces or wholesale genetic engineering, we're in for a rough ride.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- shezi 9y ago
  There are various examples where breeders did not outcompete, and instead a population settled on a low birth rate. Any animal that is not predator-dominated, really, but the best-known examples are New Zealands Kakapo [1] and Panda bears [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakapo#Breeding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakapo#Breeding [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_panda#Reproduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_panda#Reproduction
ptha 9y ago
Hans Rosling has done some research and ted talks about this: https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_...
mac01021 9y ago
> stable at around 10-11 billion within 100 years but is that small enough or soon enough to avoid environmental catastrophe?

CaptSpify 9y ago

I think many people probably like the idea, but are worried about implementation. Example: I think everyone should be sterilized at birth, but it should be reversible at no cost to them. But I can't think of a single government that I'd trust to enact this policy correctly without falling into a Eugenics system.