[Tovarish Spetsnaz]

I read some shocking statistics today...

In 1900...the world's population was around 1 billion

In 2000...it was around 6 billion

In a matter of 1 century the population increased by 600%!

what will it be in 2100?? With this rate...36 billion!! The earth will never be able to support this many humans.

How long...before we simply over populate earth to the point that we have to start fighting with each other for what scraps of food are left???

I think this is a real problem...that will certainly come up in our lifetime.

[Boondock Saint]

Which is why I believe its time to implement a certification and licensing process in order to reproduce. Everyone is limited to two children of whatever sex nature gives them. After two children both members of the couple are 'fixed'.

People must pass physical, psycological and intelligence tests in order to be licensed. THose who fail the licensing exam are 'fixed', each individual has the right to take the exam three times, on the third failure they no longer possess the right to reproduce, that is when they are fixed.

A person is free to volunteer to be fixed at any time after the age of sexual maturity which is based on individual growth.

Anyone who attempts to reproduce when not licensed is subject to fine and immediate 'fixing'.

A man or woman with two children are considered to have filled their quota, they are not free to have more then two children regardless of the number of partners.

[Secession]

I have heard ideas like this before. What about people like me who never want any children? I have what others would regard as a valuable commodity, my potential licence for two children (or is my part just the one?) and I'd like to be able to sell it.

[Lt. Spoonman]

The problem with the licensing thing is it could work in only the nations of Europe and parts of N and S America... (China already has a similar system, as you well know - minus the fixing.) These - with the exception of China - are not the location of the problem... India, Indonesia, parts of Africa and South America, are places where such limits would be impossible to enforce, and they are the fastest growing populations in the world. I think that a population problem is inevitable and there is precious little we can do to stop it.

[Siberian Fox]

The only reson for the moderate population increase in developed nations is immigration. If one stripps out population movements from the equation then it can be seen that the populations of developed nations are either stable or are in fact falling.

The solution to controling global population growth is obvious - elimiate poverty. With development and higher standards of living people have less children. No draconian arbitary controls are necessary. What is necessary is to help bring the developing world up the the same standards of living as the developed world.

There is probably some information on the topic on the UNDP website somewhere. Of course other 'stopgap' solutions might be tried, but in the long run economic development is the only one that will work.

[Demosthenes]

Well, I'm for continueing to expand humans dominion over the universe so we could just start developing colony ships and jettisoning them into outer space for "parts unknown". Further it could be set up as a penal program as well, oooo..you robbed a bank, well either sign up for colony duty or go to prison. On a mass scale it would be effective. Of course we have to conquer that little space travel problem first...

[Boondock Saint]

@ Secession.

-- Interesting concept, if you have passed the licensing exam and are indeed licensed to reproduce but choose not to, can you sell your two child slots? Very interesting ... naturally the purchaser must be a licensed individual ... I don't see why not, though this may lead to an illegal trade in licenses ...

Lt. Spoonman.

Indeed, it seems where there is the least food their are the most people ... naturally a system like this would only be implemented AFTER proper modernization of a nation takes place. After all, it wouldnt be fair to expect your avg. African to be at the same level of education as your avg. westerner ... not for any reason other then the poor level of education afforded to your avg. African.

While a system like this might seem to be harsh or against an individuals rights we must understand that the whole of humanity is more important then any one individuals feelings. Furthermore, the obvious issues with starvation, overcrowding, impending pollution due to excess human wastes, increase in communicable diseases, and extreme stress of wildlife habitats to support housing for all these humans are extremely important issues and should take priority over the 'feelings' of anyone who might be 'fixed'.

[Boondock Saint]

Demo ... interesting, maybe we can make space station penal colonies?

Where we just take criminals and jettison them into orbit ...

Then again it might be cheaper and easier just to create artificial islands or use uninhabited islands ...

As for what Fox said, I am in agreement with his concept but thing licensing would still be useful.

[Tovarish Spetsnaz]

I agree with Fox 100%!!

The answer is not some racist discriminatory "license"...based on what you consider is acceptable for reproduction (what will a "physical" determine if a person should reproduce or not???). This is something Hitler would do...

The answer is sexual education...education on the impact it has on society...and yes...elimination of poverty. People in under-developed areas reproduce more becasue of the need to have many offsprings (many die...and many are needed for work)

[CasX]

Yes exactly TS and Fox.
Theoretically, most nations go through 4 stages of population change as they become more developed.
First, traditional societies where there is an extremely high birth rate and death rate, so a relatively stable population.
Second, medicine and science increases as the country gets richer, and this begins to decrease the death rate, though birth rates remain very high - so there is a huge increase in population.
Third, as the advantages of medicines and technology become noticeable, and there is greater access to contraceptives, birth rates decline.
Fourth, (modern, developed western society) birth rates and death rates are both very low, a very stable population number.

[Noumenon]

Actually theres nothing to worry about at all. The UN has estimated that the world's population will plateau at around 10 billion. It may even begin declining.

http://bcsd.freeservers.com/A/Populatio ... estima.htm
http://bcsd.freeservers.com/A/UN/UNPF/111796_un.htm

[Boondock Saint]

Isildur might have a good point about the population declining ... especially once all the AIDS cases really hit the ceiling ... I figure entire cities (number wise) will be dying left and right ...

[Demosthenes]

Yeah well all this talk about doing away with poverty is kinda boring, I still think jettisoning the extras out into space is much more fun and could provide for some high quality entertainment.

Do I sense the makings of a new "reality" show? 100 people, half of them criminals are launched into space on a long journey to colonize a new planet. How do they interact? How will they handle adversity? If an asteroid slams into their ship would the cameras catch all the gore? Tune into DemoTV tonight at 8:00 and find out!

[Proctor]

Interesting Boondock, isn't the fact that China has a limit on the number of children allowed one of the reasons it is so evil?

I guess I'm like the bacteria. I don't see any real problem. The world's population has always been increasing, and we have always just found more space. I'm not worried.

[CasX]

I don't see any real problem. The world's population has always been increasing, and we have always just found more space. I'm not worried.

We've found more space up till now. Now, the only new space we are getting is by utilising our existing land better (minimal) or by destroying natural environments (rainforests etc) for more farmland. This will contribute to increased global pollution levels and global warming.

It is a worry. We aren't feeding six billion people. Imagine a world with another 4 India's. Could we feed this? This population increase also means a huge increase in other materials needed - like housing. Another impact is an enormous increase in rubbish created.

You're insane if you don't think that almost doubling the human population on Earth isn't going to have enormous impacts on the environment - an environment we are already systematically destroying, when there are only six billion of us!

[Boondock Saint]

Interesting Boondock, isn't the fact that China has a limit on the number of children allowed one of the reasons it is so evil?

WHOA! Did I ever say that? I don't even know if I ever refered to China as evil at all ...

And I gotta agree with CasX again ... which seems to be becoming habit ... the world is gonna be in a big pile of shit if we don't do something about the ever growing population. Perhaps thats why the AIDS vaccine is still not 'discovered' ... (warning, conspiracy theory alert) ... maybe the large and powerful nations of the world are holding it back to dwindle some of the numbers of the open mouths?(Conspiracy theory ended)

Anyway, perhaps education is the way to go ... but ... thats gonna take a while.

[Demosthenes]

Well...since no one's jumping on my "jettison them into space" bandwagon, how about teaching better farming methods? I mean we actually burn excess crops when the farmers grow too much...which is patently insane, but then again if the market gets flooded and a bunch of farmers go out of business then...that would be bad too.

Surely there's some better way than burning crops though...

[Demosthenes]

From what I've read of your posts, I'm not sold on Technocracy's feasibility in real life. (now don't go trying to prove it again, I'm not meaning to be adversarial)
In this case, It's simply obcene to burn crops or as as you say "pay farmers not to grow" when clearly these crops could be put to better use elsewhere. Something about that is just wrong. The subsidies we rely on to keep farmeres in business is just not a good practice for a market economy. So we agree there.
However I'll go in the other direction you are going, by saying I would prefer to see some other more market based solution. Failing something workable along those lines I could see where in this instance your technocracy solution could have some merit.

The one thing I want to make sure and address though is the single largest problem faced by starving people world wide is not US Imerialism or a lack of food. It is simple poor government on the part of these countries. Many of them produce more than enough food to feed their populations but their oppressive governments don't allow that food to reach them or are simply indifferent to their own people's suffering.

In other words what good does it do the US to better run it's agricultural markets so as to produce even more surplus to be passed on to the hungry, if these countries will squander it and not pass it on to those in need anyway? I know this is slightly digressing from the topic but I mean it in the context of an ever growing population.

[Proctor]

WHOA! Did I ever say that? I don't even know if I ever refered to China as evil at all ...

Yeah, looking back, that was a stupid thing for me to say. In New Zealand at least we like to portray China as a kind of semi reformed devil. One of the greater points of attack is that they limit the number of children allowed. I probably shouldn't have associated that with you. Sorry.


I have an alternative solution, and it works along the theory of an ultra free market. I'll explain it if you want Demosthenes, but it's kind of like Technocracy; a bit too radical to jump straight into.

The issue with the African nations is that as you say, they could, and used to, easily produce enough food to feed their populace. The problem came when it became more profitable to export the food overseas, or to switch to cash crops. Which is grand for the people of rich nations, and those in power of the poor ones. Because, you have to remember, 'it's good for the economy.' Bah.

[Demosthenes]

I have an alternative solution, and it works along the theory of an ultra free market. I'll explain it if you want Demosthenes, but it's kind of like Technocracy; a bit too radical to jump straight into

Ah hell take a shot, as I mentioned there really is no excuse for people starving in the world so we may as listen to any options out there. Of course we also have to bear in mind "ideal" solutions and "workable" solutions...but I digress...fire away...