Overpopulation - How not to solve the problem.

Totototo wrote:
Pinochet sure was a visionary. Now really, I can't imagine a faster solution that doesn't involve:
A) Mass unfertilization (which I'm not sure it's a word) of a generation.

Mass murder

Someone enlighten me please.

trafn wrote:
"POPULATION CONTROL: I am sorry to burst your bubble, but even though their implementation backfired, the Chinese were right. We need to decrease the population of this planet, and quickly, back down to a level that will not overtax global renewable resources. It took over one hundred years of linear growth to double the Earth's population from one billion in 1804 to two billion in 1927. Less than one hundred years later, by 2012, exponential growth had more than tripled the number of people alive to seven billion. [1] While I have not yet seen numbers showing the best fit between renewable resources and our planetary population size, if linear acceleration had continued after 1927, then there would be less than three billion people alive on Earth today. Therefore, my best guestimate is that we need to rapidly reduce our planet's population, or at least its carbon footprint, by at least half before 2060. To be done thoroughly and peacefully, it will take a worldwide voluntary effort. The Chinese have already demonstrated - via female infanticide - how people will resist such a process if they are forced to comply. [2]"

trafn wrote:
If you mean simple in terms of low cost, and efficient in terms of fast, then mass murder is probably the most simple and efficient answer (example: drop a bunch of nuclear weapons on highly populated areas).

Unfortunately, simple and efficient in those terms would not be humane.

Jakob wrote:
­
In Europe we help people to take poison if they are too unhappy with life.

Do you know about that from other places in the world..?

­What do you think about it. Is it okay to help people killing themselves..?

I think not.
It spoils my good mood to think about all the ways it can be abused.

­­

Totototo wrote:
@Into the Night - I was being sarcastic

Sorry if you couldn't tell.

Unhappy people will kill themselves anyway if they are unhappy enough. Why do you need or want a government program to help increase the suicide rate???

Into the Night wrote:

Overpopulation - How not to solve the problem.

Totototo wrote:
Will you please read my previous posts on that thread? The guy wanted a fast solution to overpopulation and I couldn't think of any that weren't atrocious. Hence, "enlighten me please", I wanted to see what fast solutions he had in my mind.
It's not my fault you're a bit sensitive and couldn't understand a pretty obvious message.

Totototo wrote:

Unhappy people will kill themselves anyway if they are unhappy enough. Why do you need or want a government program to help increase the suicide rate???

No idea what's the reasoning behind it (no idea it was a thing in Europe either) but I'm guessing an argument in favor of that would be that suicides are... less messy? I'll ask him in his post what led to this.

Tim the plumber wrote:
Thank fuck I'm not the only one who considers talk of mass killings/sterilisation as utterly evil.

Just as to post it again;

https://overpopulationisamyth.com/

trafn wrote:
Voluntary population control can include:

1. Condoms.
2. Hormonal treatments like birth control pills.
3. Waiting longer to have children.
4. Having fewer children.
5. Not having any children.
6. Same gender sexual activity.
7. Voluntary temporary/reversible sterilization.
8. Voluntary permanent sterilization.
9. Voluntary adherence to a mono-sexual lifestyle (masturbation).
10. Voluntary adherence to an asexual lifestyle.

None of these methods involves suicide or murder.

It is the entire thread that is wrong. The whole concept of involuntary population controls is murder and mutilation. The whole concept of voluntary population controls is suicide and mutilation.

trafn wrote:
Voluntary population control can include:

1. Condoms.
2. Hormonal treatments like birth control pills.
3. Waiting longer to have children.
4. Having fewer children.
5. Not having any children.
6. Same gender sexual activity.
7. Voluntary temporary/reversible sterilization.
8. Voluntary permanent sterilization.
9. Voluntary adherence to a mono-sexual lifestyle (masturbation).
10. Voluntary adherence to an asexual lifestyle.

None of these methods involves suicide or murder.

Totototo wrote:
@Into the Night -

It is the entire thread that is wrong. The whole concept of involuntary population controls is murder and mutilation. The whole concept of voluntary population controls is suicide and mutilation.

So you're saying that we should avoid considering solutions for a potential catastrophe, right? Involuntary population control is murder? Please explain. Voluntary population control is suicide? Explain that as well.

trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - you stated: No, but they do involve mutilation and disease risky behavior.

Obviously, you are talking about the way you participate in these activities, aren't you? Perhaps you need to consider healthier alternatives in your own lifestyle. Most people I know can participate in these kind of activities without any mutilation or disease. Would you like a referral to a health professional who might be able to help you?

First, there is no potential catastrophe. Anyone who thinks there is needs to get out in the country more and see for themselves.

trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - in an effort to stay on topic, I must remind you that when you started this post, you began by saying: Since there seems to be an ongoing discussion in the Kiddie Pool about overpopulation and the various sociopathic ways of solving it, I've decided to open this subject in the Adult Pool so opposing views have a place to discuss their side.

As "Kiddie Pool" is your derogatory euphamism for the Sharing Ideas sub-forum, it would be best if all posts in this thread included a reference to Sharing Ideas, and how it might be helpful to expand the concepts posted here by also discussing them in the Sharing Ideas platform. That way, we can get the most out of this conversation as you obviously intended.

Totototo wrote:
Ok, now explain what you mean when you say "natural law".

First, there is no potential catastrophe. Anyone who thinks there is needs to get out in the country more and see for themselves.

That's not a good argument. You can't define this matter if you base yourself only on situations you whitness first-hand. And I never said it was a catastrophe now hence the word "potential", but you can see a threat if you look at the rate in which the population is growing. From 1 billion in 1800 to 7 billion this decade, I don't understand why you won't atleast consider some solutions.

Because this good old Earth is quite capable of sustaining far more than your 'scary' sounding numbers.

You might consider that this isn't a new argument. Looming 'potential' catastrophes due to overpopulation has been around since the late 1700's in the United States. There was discussion of it in England before that. That was when we had far less than the 7 billion living today.

First hand evidence is perfectly acceptable evidence. If you cut out first hand evidence, you might as well throw all of science and engineering in the scrap yard. (Sorry, Newton, you keep getting trashed)

trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - I share your interest in the fact that catastrophic "end of the world" predictions have been around probably longer than our recorded history. The only thing I find different now, and different for the first time in our history, is that today we are able to talk about the catastrophic implications of M2C2 (man-made climate change) in scientific terms. Up to now, all "end of the world" predictions were based upon biblical interpretations.

trafn wrote:
Since we have advanced to understanding M2C2 in scientific terms through the new field of climate change science, we are now able to understand the devastating impacts we our having on this planet's environment from a purely scientific perspective.

trafn wrote:
The tobacco companies fooled us once before.

trafn wrote:
The petrochemical industries won't get away with that kind of similar behavior this time. Why even Exxon admitted to M2C2 in 1977:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/10/opinion/exxons-climate-concealment.html

Jakob wrote:
­

Into the Night wrote:

Overpopulation - How not to solve the problem.

I am sorry but I do not understand it.


How can any good person ever want others not to find better ways to solve an overpopulation problem..?


And what has his work to do with climate..?


It just sounds too foolish in my ears.
And I am afraid my life is too short for too much foolish debate.
So in this matter I think I will just stay happy in "kindergarden" where it is possible to share and develop ideas about solving huge climate problems without evil sabotage from people with unclear or ill motives.

trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - I share your interest in the fact that catastrophic "end of the world" predictions have been around probably longer than our recorded history. The only thing I find different now, and different for the first time in our history, is that today we are able to talk about the catastrophic implications of M2C2 (man-made climate change) in scientific terms. Up to now, all "end of the world" predictions were based upon biblical interpretations.

Since we have advanced to understanding M2C2 in scientific terms through the new field of climate change science, we are now able to understand the devastating impacts we our having on this planet's environment from a purely scientific perspective. The tobacco companies fooled us once before. The petrochemical industries won't get away with that kind of similar behavior this time. Why even Exxon admitted to M2C2 in 1977:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/10/opinion/exxons-climate-concealment.html