Please don't call me an ignorant racist.
I would like to have a reasoned debate here if people are interested.

It has to do with population control.

I am interested in the size of the human population on earth (as opposed to the other planets).

This most recent article precipitated my posting here:

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7817684.stm

Is there an imperative at this stage to look at population control?

Or am I merely an ignorant racist?

rafter
baz
(bazmorningstar efil4nat3b, Fri 9 Jan 2009, 9:55, 25 replies, latest was 16 years ago)

I don't think you're an ignorant racist.
You malignant rapist.
( Bert Monkeysex is waiting for the mods to delete him, Fri 9 Jan 2009, 9:58, Reply)

Nothing needs to be done.
Mother nature takes care of things like that.
(oneinthepink is at your cervix m'lady, Fri 9 Jan 2009, 10:00, Reply)

( mike woz ere 7442200 & 7696970 getter, Fri 9 Jan 2009, 10:04, Reply)

It's weird how they present this stuff.
Why isn't it a problem when a quarter of the world's population COULD face a climate induced food crisis?
( mike woz ere 7442200 & 7696970 getter, Fri 9 Jan 2009, 10:06, Reply)

What oneinthepink said
If there are too many people more will start to die from starvation, lack of water, disease etc.

At any one time the Earth can support at least as many people as are alive on the plant. That's not to say that in the future some of them wont die prematurely due to starvation etc. caused by an increased population or consequences of human activity but we should just let that pan out however it's going to pan out.
( Captain V, Fri 9 Jan 2009, 10:07, Reply)

There'd probably be a sort of T-Virus or some sort of Judgement Day or massive asteroid destroyed by Morgran Freeman or something by then anyway.

( mike woz ere 7442200 & 7696970 getter, Fri 9 Jan 2009, 10:12, Reply)

See... I dont think matters should be left to pan out..
And here's where my ignorant racism comes in:

I predict a mass exodus north.

Which means more people trying to get their filthy mitts on my stuff as well as overpopulating Europe and generally making a mess of things.

I think this should be controlled.
(bazmorningstar efil4nat3b, Fri 9 Jan 2009, 10:14, Reply)

*gasps*
You massive racist!

Feed the world, the poor starving children etc etc.

Just think of all the extra sex trafficking, it'll be ace.
( Bert Monkeysex is waiting for the mods to delete him, Fri 9 Jan 2009, 10:16, Reply)

Bringing a serious note to the debate (thanks Mike WE!)
Global warming, depletion of fossil fuels, food production, scarcity of housing, pressures on transport and future pressures on drinking water all have one driving factor.

Population growth.

The current level of population is sustained by purely technological means. By 2050, global population will grow by 50% to nine billion.

We're already at peak oil as it is. The need for alternative sources of energy is paramount if we stand any chance of feeding those mouths.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Fri 9 Jan 2009, 10:18, Reply)

Couple of quick thoughts...
First, we're only overpopulated if we can't provide resources. Food needn't be a problem: there're vast swathes of the Sahara, the central US, central Asia and so on that could produce more food. All we have to do is invest in GM to raise productivity.

Second, water could be more of a problem, but needn't be in principle.

Third, ditto fuel. Certainly if we can GM microbes to break down cellulose, perfect fusion, and have more efficient PV cells, there's more than enough clean energy to go around. All it needs is investment and research.

Four, in the meantime there's a huge problem with mass starvation. Pointing out that mother nature will take care of things takes n account of the reality for the actual people who're actually hungry. I don't care at all about humanity, or any other species for that matter (beyond aesthetically). But I do care about particular humans and particular other creatures. You can't just dismiss them.

Five, the population will fall if we can provide wealth and education - there's been a certain degree of success with this in certain areas of the developing world already, and you can generate a virtuosu circle.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 9 Jan 2009, 10:31, Reply)

We'll find an alternate source of fuel easy enough I reckon.
We've managed it in the past. Seems hydrogen fuel cells and the like are being weened in at the minute so I don't really foresee a problem in that respect.
( mike woz ere 7442200 & 7696970 getter, Fri 9 Jan 2009, 10:50, Reply)

I guess my decision to stay childless isn't going to make much of a dent on the problem.
I think in the future, everyone who decides to not have kids for the benefit of the human race should have special privilidges.


This would push more people to stay childless thus lowering the population.


Why has no-one else thought of this?

Edit - Men with a low sperm count would be venerated.
( girlinthehole, Fri 9 Jan 2009, 10:32, Reply)

@BGB
Not having children for well thought out and intelligent reasons will remove genes at the top-end of the bell-curve from the gene-pool.
So really it is your fault society is dumbing down. Intelligent people should breed more and kill off the scrotes. Just saying.
(porkylips looks better as the sun goes down., Fri 9 Jan 2009, 10:47, Reply)

PJM spaff only £30 a shot...
This week's special offer:

Free turkey baster!
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Fri 9 Jan 2009, 10:49, Reply)

I didn't not have kids for well thought out and intelligent reasons.
I'm just selfish : )



But I do see your point.
( girlinthehole, Fri 9 Jan 2009, 10:50, Reply)

^
What BGB said. Me too.
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Fri 9 Jan 2009, 10:53, Reply)

Enzyme...
...has put an intelligent point forward.

But the problem is that we have no timescale for when these technologies will become commonplace (or even feasible). Commercially generated energy from nuclear fusion is probably 75 years away. There are ethical issues surrounding GM oganisms (although I suspect that the use GM bacteria being used to produce oil from plant matter will happen quickly) which could delay development by decades.

However, the growth of the world population continues unabated. I suspect it would take some form of calamity to stem growth.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Fri 9 Jan 2009, 10:59, Reply)

I think every starving person in africa should come to europe
and bob geldof should fuck of to africa and starve.
( Peej, Fri 9 Jan 2009, 11:09, Reply)

@PJM
What do you mean about ethical problems with GM? There are certainly people who complain about it on what they claim are ethical ground, but that's not the same. I can't think of many ethicists who're opposed to all GM on principle - the strongest objection is a practical one, on the assumption that it'd be a good idea to keep manipulated genes out of the wider ecosystem (though why this should be important baffles me...). This isn't an argument against GM, though: it's against poorly-managed GM.

Let's face it: we've been genetically manipulating foods for thousands of years. All we're doing now is getting better at it.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 9 Jan 2009, 11:24, Reply)

Here's a solution
Remove all those people who have fucked up their countries and put them in a camp.
Take their children from them and educate\re-educate them in environmental and social responsibility.
They would then be able to run their countries\look after themselves properly.
Send the children back but keep the older scrotes locked up till they die.
Do not allow any religious education or whatever until they are old enough to argue the existence of a higher being logically.
(porkylips looks better as the sun goes down., Fri 9 Jan 2009, 11:29, Reply)

heres a solution
make Dubya permanent president of the US.

He'll have wiped out 90% of the worlds poorest people within 20 years.
( Peej, Fri 9 Jan 2009, 11:32, Reply)

Porkylips
I hope you're joking but I don't think you are.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 9 Jan 2009, 11:59, Reply)

@Psychochomp
It's ok, I don't post enough for people to recognise when I'm being sarky\ironic. I was in full mail reader mode there following a recent "discussion" with FiL where I pointed out the utter crap that passes for reporting in The Daily Wail. TBH I think a basic start to a solution would be an arms embargo and a cessation of aid to those countries which find time and money to blow shit out of their own but not feed them. Strictly policed of course so that the western world can make a profit while looking to be all patriarchal and benevolent. Ah, fuck it. Send in the Anarchist Education Front.
(porkylips looks better as the sun goes down., Fri 9 Jan 2009, 12:07, Reply)

@BGB
I am absolutely with you on the voluntary childlessness through being selfish.

I just got a swanky new Samsung Tocco phone this morning - I now have two bills and a third prepay phone for the brother to use when he's over from Paris.

Little luxuries like this would be rapidly ruled out if there was a money-heamorrhaging chisler involved.
(bazmorningstar efil4nat3b, Fri 9 Jan 2009, 13:14, Reply)

I rather like Phillie Joe's idea.
Bush would wipe out the low class quickly.....which would in turn not only cut down on population, but reduce crime and welfare.
( flirting with badgers What? It sounded good at the time., Fri 9 Jan 2009, 19:50, Reply)