Over in the abortion thread, Mac got pretty heavily slated for being in favour of a voluntary sterilization programme.  OK, maybe he shouldn't have phrased it as:

I'm not necessarily against all of eugenics.  I don't believe poor people are inferior, but I do prefer implementing practical programs that control the population growth of the poor, so as to improve the economy and reduce welfare spending.

While I'd not go so far as to agree with Max that the above statement is "Pure, unadulterated racism,", it is quite remarkably selfish in one context - that poor people should stop having children so it doesn't affect *my* standard of living.  But this poll isn't to do with limited, parochial concerns about standard of living in one rich country - it's about our global petri dish.

Thing is, as I see it even a voluntary programme of sterilization isn't going to help over the long term: a genetic tendency to have more offspring is a survival trait we've evolved.  The world's major religions (well, Islam and Catholicism anyway) see it as a duty of their followers to increase their following by having ever more children.

The world we're on has a finite set of resources: if we keep reproducing the way we are, the ability of the earth to feed its human population will be exceeded, and knowing humanity's utter inability to think rationally about pretty much anything, it'll probably happen catastrophically.  We'll go past that point, eat up all the reserves and billions upon billions of people will die either of starvation or in food riots or wars over what resources are left.  Only after all the sheeshstorm has died down will people say "I thought we were supposed to be intelligent.  What we should have done is..."

Well, what should we have done?

Education. 

Other: Do nowt...Ma Nature will have the last laugh and unleash something upon us eventually!  ::)

She has a way of doing that

She has a way of doing that


With a little help from her wayward son...mankind!

Education. 

Won't work - not unless & until you can convince people like His Infallibleness in Rome that more people is not always a good thing.

Even then, I'm not convinced it would be possible to educate enough of the world's people that it would actually make a difference.  I was going to put "education" as an option on the poll, but decided against it as it's what everyone will choose even though there's not a cat in hell's chance of it being effective.

Perhaps we control overpopulation by forcing all men and women of child bearing age to undergo plastic surgery.

The men will be made to look like Ernest Borgnine, and the ladies will be made identical to Ethel Merman.

Perhaps we control overpopulation by forcing all men and women of child bearing age to undergo plastic surgery.

The men will be made to look like Ernest Borgnine, and the ladies will be made identical to Ethel Merman.


;D  That would definitely do it for me

Perhaps we control overpopulation by forcing all men and women of child bearing age to undergo plastic surgery.

The men will be made to look like Ernest Borgnine, and the ladies will be made identical to Ethel Merman.

:)  Identical?  Does that include singing voices?  The thought of a few million (let alone a few billion) Ethel Mermans is really scary...

The way things are going, Mother Nature is going to take care of it for us by drowning us, setting us on fire, and blowing us away.  The weather is doing to do its part.

Yes, but...

...Even the worst of the natural disasters, the very worst earthquakes haven't killed a million people - the earth's population is going up by more than that every week.  The worst that weather can do doesn't even register on the scale.  Though that may change with an increasing planetary temperature.

I said other:

There really isn't much we can do.
There has always been over-population talk, as far back as I can remember, and yet nothing really is or has been done about it.
There have been movements to try and control the population, but they have failed. They tried to educate about birth control in Africa, and it semi-failed.
They try to educate about birth control in my son's high school, and it fails. (Currently, 75% of females in his Senior class are pregnant.)
China tries to limit how many children a household can have - and it fails.
Population problems began way before my time and I am sure they will continue way after my time.

All I can do is educate my son and hope that he listens. That's the thing, you can try and do everything possible, but individuals are going to have children if they want to.

...Even the worst of the natural disasters, the very worst earthquakes haven't killed a million people - the earth's population is going up by more than that every week.  The worst that weather can do doesn't even register on the scale.  Though that may change with an increasing planetary temperature.


Well, I was thinking along the lines of a nicely mutated version of 'flu of pandemic proportions...similar in scope to the 1919 Spanish variant which killed more people worldwide than The Great War did, fact fans!

Failing that, a plague of Ethel Mermans sweeping the planet might do it...

They try to educate about birth control in my son's high school, and it fails. (Currently, 75% of females in his Senior class are pregnant.)


75% prego?  :o

Wow your son's high school classmates must party Big Willy Style.   ;D

They try to educate about birth control in my son's high school, and it fails. (Currently, 75% of females in his Senior class are pregnant.)




WHAT!

75% prego?  :o

Wow your son's high school classmates must party Big Willy Style.   ;D




WHAT!



Completely serious!
I don't know if it is because in March/April it was still cold outside and nothing for them to do, but I kid you not. 75% are pregnant!!!!

And honestly, if you go to the town just down the interstate, or even just look around here, every other woman seems to be pregnant. It may not be a fair comparison because it is an Army town/Post but still!!!

Completely serious!
I don't know if it is because in March/April it was still cold outside and nothing for them to do, but I kid you not. 75% are pregnant!!!!

And honestly, if you go to the town just down the interstate, or even just look around here, every other woman seems to be pregnant. It may not be a fair comparison because it is an Army town/Post but still!!!


What did they do, one of those pregnancy pacts?  So what is the economic situation up there?  Can the locals handle a population boom? 

Free trips to the moon!

In order to reduce birth rates, a culture needs to implement literacy, empowerment, and sociopolitical equality for women.  That seems to be the best-working solution. 

One could increase the death rates, but then we have to decide who gets to decide who is to live and who is to die, and that gets ugly awfully fast, just ask your Uncle Adolph.

::)

Free trips to the moon!


"A new life awaits you in the Off-World colonies. The chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure...New climate, recreational facilities...absolutely free. Use your new friend as a personal body servant or a tireless field hand -- the custom tailored genetically engineered humanoid replicant designed especially for your needs. So come on America, let's put our team up there..."

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/77/171078803_586e80413f.jpg

Sign me up.  I always wanted to wind up in a real-life version of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, but since that's not going to happen in large enough numbers to make a difference to the folks living in Blade Runner, and since it's probably not going to happen in my lifetime anyways, we're back to...

Education.  If you're educated, your family tree looks like this, because you've got more important things to do than mate, spawn, and die.  And if you do spawn, you do so once, and you invest a lot of resources into your offspring.

http://10.media.tumblr.com/27bvl6txKeyhkbmnfhQaMAL0o1_400.jpg

vs. the alternative.

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/8902/familytreea.jpg

Of course, if education doesn't work, there'll be enough dumb voters to put someone into power who will break out the nukes, but probably only after resource shortages have driven everyone to war over dwindling supplies of potable water.  (Governments exist to keep themselves in power.  No water?  Can't grow food.  Can't grow food?  Mobs of starving people aren't conducive to governments staying in power.  Break out the nukes!)

One way or another, population explosions are self-limiting phenomena. 

NSFW:

http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/

Ant

Idiocracy was an underrated movie. 

I think we should do more space discovery and try to live on the Inner-Ring Planets.

It may cost money, but look how much we can save in the long run.

Idiocracy was an underrated movie documentary.


Fixed that for you :)

Idiocracy was an underrated movie. 


I agree.  I saw it a few months ago, and was blown away. 

Personally, I believe that eventually, unless we get things under control, we are going to be having some massive pandemics.

Historically, whenever population starts to get to big, disease has been the major check.  But with our improvements in sanitation, that is becomming a thing of the past.  Healthcare in knocking out the infant mortality rate is also making a huge impact.

However, healthcare otherwise has little impact actually.  Because increased life expectancy impacts people who have already had children, and generally are no longer reproduceing (not counting the Tony Randal's of the world).  ;)

But every few years, we have new diseases starting to come into play.  HIV was the first one, but it is much to slow in spreading, and generally affects people who are older (and often times have voluntarrily removed themselves from the gene pool).  Ebola is a very efficiant killer, but it is to efficient.  The outbreaks burn out before spreading sufficiently.

H1N1 is a pandemic, but it is now being shown to not have the lethality of the H1N1 from 1918.  And with better diets people's immune systems are better able to resist.  So this had the potential, but it is just not going to happen this time.

But if you ask me, I still bet that within the next 50-100 years, a pandemic will occur that devistates the population, either globally or regionally.  But natural disaster is still not outside the realm of possibility.

But that would have to be a huge event, on the scale of NEO 99942 Apophis colliding with the planet, or the overdue Yellowstone Supervolcano erupting.  Both of these events have happened before, and will happen again.

To me, thse are far more likely to reduce the overpopulation then anything else.  Because we get every nation in the world to enact policies like China, nothing else will bring it under control.

But that would have to be a huge event, on the scale of NEO 99942 Apophis colliding with the planet, or the overdue Yellowstone Supervolcano erupting.  Both of these events have happened before, and will happen again.


Both of which have a .00000999%* of happening in our lifetime.

*Statistic pulled out of my ass, but I know the chance is small.  I did a lot of research on it when I was going through my manic, "We're all going to die from an asteroid/volcano/insert natural disaster here!!!" phase.

Completely serious!
I don't know if it is because in March/April it was still cold outside and nothing for them to do, but I kid you not. 75% are pregnant!!!!

And honestly, if you go to the town just down the interstate, or even just look around here, every other woman seems to be pregnant. It may not be a fair comparison because it is an Army town/Post but still!!!


How did they figure out it was 75%?
???

I agree.  I saw it a few months ago, and was blown away. 

Personally, I believe that eventually, unless we get things under control, we are going to be having some massive pandemics.

Historically, whenever population starts to get to big, disease has been the major check.  But with our improvements in sanitation, that is becomming a thing of the past.  Healthcare in knocking out the infant mortality rate is also making a huge impact.

However, healthcare otherwise has little impact actually.  Because increased life expectancy impacts people who have already had children, and generally are no longer reproduceing (not counting the Tony Randal's of the world).   ;)

But every few years, we have new diseases starting to come into play.  HIV was the first one, but it is much to slow in spreading, and generally affects people who are older (and often times have voluntarrily removed themselves from the gene pool).  Ebola is a very efficiant killer, but it is to efficient.  The outbreaks burn out before spreading sufficiently.

H1N1 is a pandemic, but it is now being shown to not have the lethality of the H1N1 from 1918.  And with better diets people's immune systems are better able to resist.  So this had the potential, but it is just not going to happen this time.

But if you ask me, I still bet that within the next 50-100 years, a pandemic will occur that devistates the population, either globally or regionally.  But natural disaster is still not outside the realm of possibility.

But that would have to be a huge event, on the scale of NEO 99942 Apophis colliding with the planet, or the overdue Yellowstone Supervolcano erupting.  Both of these events have happened before, and will happen again.

To me, thse are far more likely to reduce the overpopulation then anything else.  Because we get every nation in the world to enact policies like China, nothing else will bring it under control.


I agree with Mushroom.  I think the earth has ways of checking and balancing itself.  I know that might sound silly and naive of me, but I truly believe that disease and natural disaster are the only things that will ever control population.  There is no way that a majority of countries are going to go the way of China.  Especially Christian and Islamic countries.  Please.  It's going to have to happen randomly and naturally and be completely out of our control.

How did they figure out it was 75%?
???


Well, the senior class has 17 females.
Of those 17, 12 are pregnant.

Both of which have a .00000999%* of happening in our lifetime.

*Statistic pulled out of my ass, but I know the chance is small.  I did a lot of research on it when I was going through my manic, "We're all going to die from an asteroid/volcano/insert natural disaster here!!!" phase.


Yes, but the percentage is really harder to figure because it does not follow most such patterns.

Such events happen only very rarely.  Supervolcanos typically happen very rarely.  And the last one happened over 26,000 years ago.  But like other events (like earthquakes), they tend to follow patterns, and can be roughly predicted.

The Yellowstone Caldera erupts on average every 600,000 to 700,000 years.  And the last eruption was between 640,000-650,000 years ago.  So statistically, that means that it is due at any time.  And as time passes, the odds will actually increase every year.

And while asteroids will always remain a threat, the odds of them happening has always been remote.  They happen on average over a much more vast scale, measured in hundreds of millions of years, instead of tens of thousands.

If I was to bet, the #1 cause would be disease.  That has always been the major killer of humans.  Volcanos comes in a more distant second.  However, a Supervolcano eruption will bring us closer to extinction then probably anything else.  If that happens, expect 80% of the population worldwide to die within 10 years.

Well, the senior class has 17 females.
Of those 17, 12 are pregnant.


Is that a high school or a 'ho school? ???

Is that a high school or a 'ho school? ???


Don't put it all on the girls, there is a so-called father for each one of those babies.  Well, maybe some of those babies have the same father. 

Is that a high school or a 'ho school? ???


So a girl that has sex is automatically a ho?  ::)

I had sex in high school.  I was just lucky enough to have birth control available to me.

Abstinence only teaching is definitely the realistic way to go.  ::)

So a girl that has sex is automatically a ho?   ::)

I had sex in high school.  I was just lucky enough to have birth control available to me.

Abstinence only teaching is definitely the realistic way to go.   ::)


I would agree that Abstinence only education is ridiculous, but I'm a bit peeved that the Hatch Amendment might pass the Senate despite a Democratic supermajority.

I would agree that Abstinence only education is ridiculous, but I'm a bit peeved that the Hatch Amendment might pass the Senate despite a Democratic supermajority.



It was my understanding that it had already passed.  Unless we are talking about two different things?

The annoying thing about the Hatch Amendment is that it's superfluous.  I work in the Health Department for a school district, and parents have always had the right to remove their students from anything they don't want them to be exposed to.  They have to sign a waiver at the beginning of the school year in order for their children to receive sex education in the first place, and the education they do receive is sub par at best.  Of course this is only my opinion.  I'm not sure what laws are like in other states, but I know that any school district that doesn't want to be sued is going to have something like this in place already. 

It was my understanding that it had already passed.  Unless we are talking about two different things?

The annoying thing about the Hatch Amendment is that it's superfluous.  I work in the Health Department for a school district, and parents have always had the right to remove their students from anything they don't want them to be exposed to.  They have to sign a waiver at the beginning of the school year in order for their children to receive sex education in the first place, and the education they do receive is sub par at best.  Of course this is only my opinion.  I'm not sure what laws are like in other states, but I know that any school district that doesn't want to be sued is going to have something like this in place already. 


The same is true in NC.

But yeah, the amendment passed a committee but not the whole Senate...  yet.