mj.scuba Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 You wouldn't need to only have one child per couple to reduce the population, if people that want kids had two, possibly even three, it would still result in population decline because not all people want children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 Population is an issue. We have one child. Part of our thinking was that the planet is overpopulated, and by having one child we are helping with that - when we are both dead, there will only be one person. If everyone did this the population would halve in less than 100 years. Medicine is evolving faster than us - we are driven to have multiple off-spring because our sense is that we must pass on our genes, but some children will not survive to do so. Obviously in the west, death prior to reproduction is getting less common, but we still have this drive to have more than one child just in case. Population growth is unsustainable in the long term - all the earth's resources are effectively finite. It only remains to be seen if we decide to do something about it - like only have one child per couple - or if we 'solve' it by people starving or being killed in wars that will become more common as commodities become more scarce and more expensive. I'm hoping for the latter, but judging by my neighbours (bloke next door has 4 kids that don't live with him and 2 that do) I don't think the 'one child' idea is going to catch on. I'm hoping you meant former. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 Reminds me of article, in the New Scientist I think, called something like Population: The elephant in the room. Can't find it now but there is this from the BBC. Personally I think many of the worlds problems could be solved by a 90% reduction in population. Quite how this could be achieved is another matter (although I hear the Illuminati have plans along these lines:roll:). jb Or share 99% of the Earth's resources equally..that would be far easier than an attempt at birth control. Maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcoblog Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 The main problem here is that if we did achieve this (and I hope we could as the other option would be many wars over everything) we are still screwed because all of our economics, social care etc is based on everlasting growth Pretty stupid when you think the world is finite, even stupider in our case as we are on a small island and should be the first to recognise this problem. Yeah, but it's only based on increasing growth to cope with the population boom? Look at the figures here ... it's frightening and exponential! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number Six Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 I'm hoping you meant former. jb Yeah - I did. Apart from for my neighbours. I don't mind if anyone wants to go to war with them - it can't be any noisier than they are at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 Defensive talk causes other people to go on the defensive, which then escalates to an argument or war, in it's worse state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 What do you mean about things being based on everlasting growth? Surely this can be adjusted, and would make things even easier? you need enough working age people to support the elderly, both physically and monetarily (if that is a word). The way with live now requires the population to grow forever otherwise our economy would collapse. Think of the pensions issues we are having now and that is with population growth! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azazel666 Posted September 15, 2011 Author Share Posted September 15, 2011 Defensive talk causes other people to go on the defensive, which then escalates to an argument or war, in it's worse state. Am I reading this right that you're saying the West doesn't criticise Africa in fear of Africa getting hacked off with us doing so, and thus causing friction in the world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 Yeah, but it's only based on increasing growth to cope with the population boom? Look at the figures here ... it's frightening and exponential! Is it? I'm pretty sure its our ageing population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azazel666 Posted September 15, 2011 Author Share Posted September 15, 2011 you need enough working age people to support the elderly, both physically and monetarily (if that is a word). The way with live now requires the population to grow forever otherwise our economy would collapse. Think of the pensions issues we are having now and that is with population growth! Really good point. The question is do we struggle in the short term or leave a whole load more people to struggle in 100 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.