4 ms·

How would you recommend implementing population control?

snakeyjake 3y ago
What conspiracy nutjobs think: SECRET STERILIZATIONS THROUGH VACCINES, ABORTING THE UNDESIRABLE, AND GENOCIDE What normal people think: family planning, greater economic opportunities that do not require large pools of familial labor to achieve, better healthcare leading to fewer dead babies thus a lower incentive to have large families.
- metalcrow 3y ago
  I don't think calling China's actions for the past 4 decades to achieve this exact goal a "conspiracy" is reasonable.
  - snakeyjake 3y ago
    Yes, because China is the model to follow. Why didn't you bring up the Rwandan Genocide? Much faster results!
    - ImJamal 3y ago
      There are a fair number of people who have no issue with what China did and as such it is fair to ask somebody advocating for the same policy if they support China's method.
btbuildem 3y ago
Emancipation of women and free education for girls worldwide. Raising the standard of living in poor countries. This alone would massively impact population growth.
- swingingFlyFish 3y ago
  "Emancipation of women and free education for girls worldwide. Raising the standard of living in poor countries." Yup, let's push our ideology on other countries because the west is white is right. We won't go into the impact certain gender equivalent movements have had on the world.
addicted 3y ago
The only needed population control is to wipe out all Americans. That would do more than wiping out people from several continents. But I bet that’s not what the “population control” crowd is thinking. The “population control” crowd is almost certainly thinking fewer Africans and Asians who consume a 10th of what they’re consuming themselves.
- swingingFlyFish 3y ago
  Wipe out America and another imperialists take it's place. That's not the answer. Hookey as it sounds living in harmony with nature, recycling, reusing and resource management are what's best.
somedude895 3y ago
Western populations are shrinking already, so it would have to specifically target peoples in Africa and the Middle East. Turns out degrowth advocates and Neonazis have shared goals.
- swingingFlyFish 3y ago
  They're shrinking globally. https://www.sciencealert.com/birth-rates-are-plummeting-in-most-nations-and-the-world-isnt-prepared https://www.sciencealert.com/birth-rates-are-plummeting-in-m... That said, the world will probably be black by 2200. Makes sense.
AtlasBarfed 3y ago
Malthus would say disease, famine, and war. But the new world brought urbanization and birth control, which appears to be the most effective. And since we are discussion overpopulation, I need to emphasize that the 8 billion people in the world (holy shit, it was 3.6 billion when I was born. I'm not that old) isn't the important metric. The important metric is the lifestyle / resources consumed per person. China, India, etc all want US-type lifestyles, personal vehicles, abundant and varied food. Yeah, THAT can't be sustained with our population. Our world survives because about a billion people live like that, probably 2 billion / 25% live in poverty (translate poverty to "doesn't consume a lot"), and the rest live spartan lifestyles. The danger of global warming isn't really the heat or weather changes. The gradual pressure applied by global warming intensifies geopolitical conflict and reduces viability of farmland, the "war" and "famine" of malthus. It probably will increase disease too, but modern technology seemingly can handle that a lot better than back in Malthus's time.

What conspiracy nutjobs think: SECRET STERILIZATIONS THROUGH VACCINES, ABORTING THE UNDESIRABLE, AND GENOCIDE What normal people think: family planning, greater economic opportunities that do not require large pools of familial labor to achieve, better healthcare leading to fewer dead babies thus a lower incentive to have large families.

metalcrow 3y ago
I don't think calling China's actions for the past 4 decades to achieve this exact goal a "conspiracy" is reasonable.
- snakeyjake 3y ago
  Yes, because China is the model to follow. Why didn't you bring up the Rwandan Genocide? Much faster results!
  - ImJamal 3y ago
    There are a fair number of people who have no issue with what China did and as such it is fair to ask somebody advocating for the same policy if they support China's method.

btbuildem 3y ago

Emancipation of women and free education for girls worldwide. Raising the standard of living in poor countries. This alone would massively impact population growth.

swingingFlyFish 3y ago
"Emancipation of women and free education for girls worldwide. Raising the standard of living in poor countries." Yup, let's push our ideology on other countries because the west is white is right. We won't go into the impact certain gender equivalent movements have had on the world.

addicted 3y ago

The only needed population control is to wipe out all Americans. That would do more than wiping out people from several continents. But I bet that’s not what the “population control” crowd is thinking. The “population control” crowd is almost certainly thinking fewer Africans and Asians who consume a 10th of what they’re consuming themselves.

swingingFlyFish 3y ago
Wipe out America and another imperialists take it's place. That's not the answer. Hookey as it sounds living in harmony with nature, recycling, reusing and resource management are what's best.

somedude895 3y ago

Western populations are shrinking already, so it would have to specifically target peoples in Africa and the Middle East. Turns out degrowth advocates and Neonazis have shared goals.

swingingFlyFish 3y ago
They're shrinking globally. https://www.sciencealert.com/birth-rates-are-plummeting-in-most-nations-and-the-world-isnt-prepared https://www.sciencealert.com/birth-rates-are-plummeting-in-m... That said, the world will probably be black by 2200. Makes sense.

AtlasBarfed 3y ago

Malthus would say disease, famine, and war. But the new world brought urbanization and birth control, which appears to be the most effective. And since we are discussion overpopulation, I need to emphasize that the 8 billion people in the world (holy shit, it was 3.6 billion when I was born. I'm not that old) isn't the important metric. The important metric is the lifestyle / resources consumed per person. China, India, etc all want US-type lifestyles, personal vehicles, abundant and varied food. Yeah, THAT can't be sustained with our population. Our world survives because about a billion people live like that, probably 2 billion / 25% live in poverty (translate poverty to "doesn't consume a lot"), and the rest live spartan lifestyles. The danger of global warming isn't really the heat or weather changes. The gradual pressure applied by global warming intensifies geopolitical conflict and reduces viability of farmland, the "war" and "famine" of malthus. It probably will increase disease too, but modern technology seemingly can handle that a lot better than back in Malthus's time.