How to fix overpopulation?

[StringJunky]

No, just educate people in the social advantages and tax advantages of having fewer children. Easy and simple solution, nobody gets liquidated.

Humour, served black.

 

"Work towards accommodating...regardless of how big it gets...50B....." is an absurd notion. Environmental pressures will surely be triggered at a sufficiently large population. Better to simply make the advantages of a smaller world population, along with global warming and other environmental degradations painfully obvious to everyone through education. Then people themselves will make a reasonable choice.

Most people's interest in others goes no further than their own town... if that.

[EdEarl]

People have exceeded the carrying capacity of various places, including Easter Island. They seem to not pay attention to warnings from nature or experts. People are now killing elephants with helicopters and automatic weapons. We have to contend with climate deniers. Fanatics are willing to kill millions of people. Trump has loyal followers. No one is totally rational, but many don't know anything about rational thought. I don't have any confidence Earth's population stop growing, nor any feeling that man will begin to cherish nature. I hope to be wrong.

[Endy0816]

Free market helping some. Costs increase as a country develops. There are many less developed countries and countries undeveloping though.

[StringJunky]

Free market helping some. Costs increase as a country develops. There are many less developed countries and countries undeveloping though.

It's not their turn yet to be exploited attract foreign investment.

[MigL]

We live in a closed system ( so far ).

And closed system populations are self-governing ( by choice or circumstance ).

So there will never be OVERpopulation.

 

Oh, and I always thought humans tasted like chicken.

Now Phi and Endy tell me it tastes like veal and Stringy says it tastes like mutton.

I can't decide whether to try it or not; I like veal but not mutton.

Edited August 6, 2016 by MigL

[Airbrush]

We live in a closed system ( so far ).

And closed system populations are self-governing ( by choice or circumstance ).

So there will never be OVERpopulation.

 

Oh, and I always thought humans tasted like chicken.

Now Phi and Endy tell me it tastes like veal and Stringy says it tastes like mutton.

I can't decide whether to try it or not; I like veal but not mutton.

 

That is really no joke. In a catastrophic population decline, and break down of social order, there will be a scarcity of food and an excess of people. The surviving humans will simply be cannibals.

[StringJunky]

 

That is really no joke. In a catastrophic population decline, and break down of social order, there will be a scarcity of food and an excess of people. The surviving humans will simply be cannibals.

If that's what it takes to survive and humans are not collectively responsible enough to do something about it before such a situation might occur we only have ourselves to blame.

[Ten oz]

EdEarl makes an great point about humans not recognizing the damage being done. Phi for All & Prometheus make good points about politics rendering any Gov't limitation on family size impractical. Add to those that some people simply do not care, not about the future or the lives of anyone but themselves in general, and we have the situation we have. I am very skeptical anything in my lifetime will change. It is akin to the obesity epidemic in the U.S. and England. Despite everyone knowing it is a problem behavior is not changing and the problem continues to get worse. Evenwhen a problem is acknowledge and the method to solve the problem is known people often (normally) lack the will to change.

 

The world will have to change greatly before population can be addressed. Changes that I struggle to wrap my head around will need to be made. Basic concepts like property ownership will become challanged in the future. Everyone wouldn't realistically be able to own property if our popluations were several times larger than they are today. At some point in the distant future land will have to become primarily if not exclusively a publically managed resource. The way we grow food, what food we eat, how energy is produced, and etc will all have to change in the future. These changes are not things humans will do out of enlightenment, in my opinion, but will be forced to do. We (human) will reach a critical point and either collaspe into war that reduces the population through extermination or find solutions.

[MigL]

Move to Canada.

We have the second largest land area in the World, the most fresh water and only 35 mil inhabitants.

And we like company.

[EdEarl]

50 B people spread across the Earth's land (148,900,000 km²) is about 335 people/km², which is less than the population density of Belgium or Florida.

[Airbrush]

Move to Canada.

We have the second largest land area in the World, the most fresh water and only 35 mil inhabitants.

And we like company.

 

Thanks for the invitation. If, or when, human social order goes to hell and there is no more water coming out of the faucets, that is when Americans will pack their belongings and ALL head north to where the rain is and water flows in nature. "Follow the water."

Edited August 8, 2016 by Airbrush

[CharonY]

If they have the means to do so. As it has been pointed out, globally there is no overpopulation per se as it would simply not sustain the "over" part. Environmentally there are of course issues that could modulate the level of sustainability, as well as technology. Locally there is a lot of variation, of course and it is maybe a bit weird that one would be concerned for e.g. the US as they clearly have more means to sustain high levels than other areas which under current rates are struggling, despite having far lower population densities.

[TakenItSeriously]

 

Create a kind of shunt birth control technology that could be open/closed using encrypted near-field signals to eliminate unplanned pregnancy.

 

If needed, once it becomes a proven, safe, and economically feasible enough, make it a mandatory, government sponsored proceeder.

 

If needed, regulate the birth rate to be fixed at x per person granted to people at birth, where x does not need to be an integer and birth credits can be traded on the open market. Details should be a separate discussion but with the goal being x = 1 once a sustainable population is achieved.

[TheNextTherory]

50 B people spread across the Earth's land (148,900,000 km²) is about 335 people/km², which is less than the population density of Belgium or Florida.

GREAT, of course, space is not the only problem, and even if it was we can't just create a mass extinction just so we have space. Read my last reply.

[Airbrush]

In the future do you think that besides controlling the numbers of people on earth governments of the world would select for certain desirable genetic traits, not in the ruthless manner of the Nazis but in a compassionate way getting rid of detrimental genes? Eliminating genes for all sorts of illnesses may eventually do away with disease and lead to longer life spans. Or develop new genes that prolong life and make people very strong and resistant to radiation and able to repair DNA like tartigrades. That would lead to more people surviving and be another pressure on the human race to reduce and control population.

Edited August 11, 2016 by Airbrush

[StringJunky]

In the future do you think that besides controlling the numbers of people on earth they (governments of the world) would select for certain desirable genetic traits, not in the ruthless manner of the Nazis but in a compassionate way getting rid of detrimental genes? Eliminating genes for all sorts of illnesses may eventually do away with disease and create longer life spans. That would be another pressure on the human race to reduce and control population.

Who decides what is detrimental? Whatever way you look at it, it's eugenics. Also, it goes against the principle of preserving genetic diversity which strengthens populations in the evolutionary sense against extinction.

Edited August 11, 2016 by StringJunky

[Airbrush]

You mean that in the future we may not figure out how to clearly improve human genetics? Who decides that being healthy is a good thing? Is it not obvious? Or would the health care industry suffer because too many people don't need health care?

 

What if we discovered a cure for cancer that involved manipulating DNA, would they say no because we need to preserve cancer or any other disease for genetic diversity? Or a couple could be told that if they have a child there is a very high probability of birth defects that would discourage them from WANTING to have children. That is voluntary eugenics. Or if a couple discovered that have very special genetics that if combined would be very beneficial to many people, would it be wrong to let them know that and to encourage them to have many children by monitary incentives?

 

This is not Nazi-styled forced sterilization just knowledge that leads to voluntary action.

Edited August 12, 2016 by Airbrush

[Prometheus]

You mean that in the future we may not figure out how to clearly improve human genetics?

 

What if we discovered a cure for cancer that involved manipulating DNA, would they say no because we need to preserve cancer or any other disease for genetic diversity? Or a couple could be told that if they have a child there is a very high probability of birth defects they would have information that would discourage them from having children. That is voluntary eugenics.

 

The difference is that we might decide to terminate or prevent a pregnancy because the child would live a life full of suffering, whereas others would terminate/prevent to pregnancy because of its cost, or lack of benefit, to society. Many people feel the latter shouldn't come into the equation.

[Airbrush]

 

The difference is that we might decide to terminate or prevent a pregnancy because the child would live a life full of suffering, whereas others would terminate/prevent to pregnancy because of its cost, or lack of benefit, to society. Many people feel the latter shouldn't come into the equation.

 

Thanks for the comment, but I made many edits after you posted. Do my edits make any difference in this discussion? Remember this is all voluntary but involves monetary incentives.

Edited August 12, 2016 by Airbrush

[EdEarl]

If you think there is a solution without having the population decrease or stop raising so fast, then you obviously want to have a crowded earth. The best way to fix the problem? Drop the life expectancy, let survival of the fittest work.

Well

Earth can only comfortably sustain 9 billion people.

Think about that. 50 billion people? That would make Earth uninhabitable. Ever thought about oxygen? Natural resources?

Do you want trees to be all for houses? Do you want "gods green earth" to be "gods concrete and polluted earth"

What about water? Are we going to purify it? How much energy would be used for that? We would have to destroy the ecosystem just so we can fit more of us? The earth doesn't just magically take CO2 out of the air. Scientists say overpopulation will be unsustainable at 10-11 billion people. They study is, a couple of 2 bits on SF won't look at the big picture. Humans don't just use food and water. We use oil, energy, metal, etc. In order to sustain even 20 billion people, we would probably have to throw away a lot. Computers, phones, all that fancy stuff that needs resources that just wouldn't be available in overpopulation.

What about AC or heaters? In overpopulation, the resources needed may not be available for ACs and heaters, which we NEED to survive in a lot of the places in the world.

I don't agree with your hypothesis that 50B people is impossible for Earth to sustain. Moreover, that large a population would not necessarily destroy nature. With our current culture, it is true that we are seriously damaging the Earth with our current population. However, it isn't necessary to use a cubic mile of oil per year, and the world is changing to renewable energy. Many other things are changing. I believe our footprint can be much less damaging, and will become so. But, I may be wrong.

[Airbrush]

 

.... others would terminate/prevent pregnancy because of its cost, or lack of benefit, to society. Many people feel the latter shouldn't come into the equation.

 

That is the pro-life argument, that women should NOT be free to terminate a pregnancy because of petty reasons, such as the cost of raising a child or because of the restriction of her freedom, but currently women have the right to choose for ANY reason.

Edited August 12, 2016 by Airbrush

[StringJunky]

That is the pro-life argument, that women should NOT be free to terminate a pregnancy because of petty reasons, such as the cost of raising a child or because of the restriction of her freedom, but currently women have the right to choose for ANY reason.

It's not the pro-life argument. Those two arguments you mention are not reasons of intellectual or physical aesthetics, which is what Prometheus is alluding to, that many think is an undesirable path to take. What an individual does is one thing but you are suggesting a high level policy which goes into questions of ethics at a large scale.

Edited August 12, 2016 by StringJunky

[Airbrush]

.....a high level policy which goes into questions of ethics at a large scale.

 

For survival of our species with the challenges of ever-increasing population, ethics at a large scale will finally be examined. Global policies will be negotiated and will be enabled by technology that can handle that high level of transparency. Yes Big Brother will become a reality, not too far off. All it takes is a terrorist attack where a dozen of the worlds largest cities are destroyed by nuclear bombs, or the entire areas rendered uninhabitable for thousands of years. Then you get martial law and hello Big Brother.

[CharonY]

You mean that in the future we may not figure out how to clearly improve human genetics? Who decides that being healthy is a good thing? Is it not obvious? Or would the health care industry suffer because too many people don't need health care?

 

 

 

The problem is that nature does not operate in convenient binary categories such as healthy vs sick. Genetic factors that can be detrimental in certain combinations under certain conditions can be beneficial in others or in different composition. We are so far off from understanding the nuances that even thinking about implementing such policies is highly problematic at best.

[Sensei]

For survival of our species with the challenges of ever-increasing population, ethics at a large scale will finally be examined.

That's why I am saying there is needed/required to fly to the Moon, Mars, further planets and colonize entire galaxy..

 

Global policies will be negotiated and will be enabled by technology that can handle that high level of transparency. Yes Big Brother will become a reality, not too far off. All it takes is a terrorist attack where a dozen of the worlds largest cities are destroyed by nuclear bombs, or the entire areas rendered uninhabitable for thousands of years. Then you get martial law and hello Big Brother.

Introduction of worldwide Big Brother will make even more terrorists, as majority of regular citizens will be against it.

I don't agree with your hypothesis that 50B people is impossible for Earth to sustain. Moreover, that large a population would not necessarily destroy nature. With our current culture, it is true that we are seriously damaging the Earth with our current population. However, it isn't necessary to use a cubic mile of oil per year, and the world is changing to renewable energy. Many other things are changing. I believe our footprint can be much less damaging, and will become so. But, I may be wrong.

Earth's area is 5.1*10^14 m^2,

after removing oceans and seas remaining 29% of land, divided by 50B people, is 54.4 x 54.4 meters area per person (currently approximately 145x145 for 7B).

Cities, buildings should be already optimized to build as high as possible,

to not have to dismount them in the future..

Tower with 55x55 m^2 bottom area, with 100 floors, is reducing 1:100 needed buildings quantity to hold 50B people.

 

Or start thinking how to build below ocean or below ground surface (or even on/in the water).. Which is either doable, as well as, necessary in the future.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Sensei