Overpopulation: You get to cast the deciding vote.

[Whateverist]

Beyond the fact that the world hasn't quite been depleted by us, that isn't the only reason to wish for many less human beings. There are other creatures on this planet and they are running out of habitat and food at an alarming rate. Turning this planet into a monoculture of humans, and organisms which nurture humans is an ugly choice. Humans as virus. Less would be so much more appealing.

[Pyrrho]

Since it's obvious you are looking for the pragmatic solution to ensure our survival in the long run,

Neither way inherently would mean that humanity would die out.  When animal populations become too great, the natural result is not necessarily extinction.  But it does mean things like starvation for many individuals.

why not simply execute half of the population, specifically old people and others that we don't need in society?

Do you seriously want me to give a response to that?  Are you advocating that as a solution to overpopulation?  Is that what you would like, and wish that I had that as a poll option?

I mean, it's cheaper than the technology, funds and investment necessary to control who reproduces and it's not like we are concerned about morality, right?

Why do you imagine it is not about morality?  Do you believe that people are only faced with options in which at least one of the choices is purely good?  Is your life that way, such that for every decision you make, there is always at least one unalloyed good option?  Do you believe everyone's life is that way?

How do you propose even implementing the measure? How do you know who has kids? You know it's possible to hide it from society, right? How do you know someone is pregnant? How do you determine who has more or less kids? Which criterion?

The story would have to be much more detailed to give definitive answers to those questions.  But you do realize that hiding a bunch of children is not easy for most people?  That many of them are likely to be found out if they try to hide it, right?

Of course, if you mean to suggest that someone somewhere will be able to cheat whatever system is in place and not get caught, isn't that true of every system and every law that people make?

How about this:  If you vote to force people to not have more children, you get to pick all of those things for yourself, in any way you like.  We can leave it that way for the purpose of the poll, and, if you wish, you can tell us how you would like these things to be arranged.

Another thing - I somehow feel that the countries where we have the resources to actually try this are the ones that need these measures the least.

Two things.  First, the hypothetical is about there being one country.  Second, your claim needs additional support, because the countries in which such a thing could be done are the countries in which each individual uses more of the world's resources.  For example, on average, a person in the U.S. uses far more resources than a person in India.

As a regular cis male, being sterile would feel awful to me, I don't know why - I would gladly kill and shoot on sight anyone who tries to take me to forced sterilization, and I don't think I'm the only one.

Undoubtedly, if forced sterilization were implemented, there would be people who would resist.  How is that relevant to whether it is the right decision or not in the hypothetical circumstances?  Right now, many people in the U.S. are resisting the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the legalization of same-sex marriage.  Does that mean that same-sex marriage should not be legal?

You are also proposing a very peculiar and unlikely scenario - With strong economic benefits most people would have less kids. Heck, if I was paid to not have kids I wouldn't have them, period.

This is motivated by posts in another thread.  Specifically, this thread:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-34562.html

My first post there:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-34562-po...#pid987566

The question asked of me:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-34562-po...#pid987573


In this thread, I have set it up specifically for the question raised there.  I would hope that the hypothetical of this thread would not happen.  As for how realistic it is, I do not know.  Some people seem determined to not use birth control, no matter what.  But I do not know what percentage of the population they represent, and consequently do not know how likely the hypothetical in the opening post is to actually occur.  But for the purposes of this thread, I do not care what the likelihood is.  It is simply a question of how such a situation should be dealt with, if it were to come about.

Indeed, I willfully made it idealized, in that I do not expect a single government of the world any time soon, but wanted to simplify the decision so that immigration was not an issue, and also to make it so that the decision would actually have the desired effect overall.  If, in the present world, one country curbs its population, that does not cause other countries to do likewise, and so the use of resources and effects on the environment and the likely starvation of many will not be stopped by the actions of one country in the world as it is now.

[Pyrrho]

Trying to separate the deontologists from the consequentialists?  I'll take my seat with the former.

I did not have that specifically in mind when formulating the question.  Nor will the responses necessarily make such a distinction.  That is, one cannot be sure that all of the people who answer one way are consequentialists and all those who answer the other way are deontologists.

[Cato]

Did the Carousel break?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSUAAKFLoL0

[Exian]

You've constrained the options to such a point that its no longer a "Sofie's Choice". It's easy, put a legal limit on reproduction, and have sterilization become a part of the birthing process. All other options have been explored, as you have stated, and the only other option, if not this, is mass starvation.

The fallout would be almost immediate with libertarians and the like revolting, which would lead to some sort of war, but it's unavoidable, as a legislator. The other method is effectively doing nothing.

Now, if I took myself out of this hypothetical and answered as myself, I'd do nothing. Worse things can happen to this planet than humans dying out. And since I'm breaking rules, I might as well bring the economy into the equation. If food is rare, food is expensive. If food expensive, people are expensive. A large portion of people, who are either calculative about their movements, thus careful with their reproductive decisions, or just selfish, thus dictating their choice to have more children, will counter balance the amount of people on earth. We are already seeing this trend.

[Pyrrho]

Beyond the fact that the world hasn't quite been depleted by us, that isn't the only reason to wish for many less human beings.  There are other creatures on this planet and they are running out of habitat and food at an alarming rate.  Turning this planet into a monoculture of humans, and organisms which nurture humans is an ugly choice.  Humans as virus.  Less would be so much more appealing.

Yes, that is true, but not what the poll is about.  For my part, I would be much happier if the population were 1 billion or less.  But that is a mere wish.  What I expect to happen is that we will drive many more species to extinction than we already have, and will make the world more like a monoculture of humans than it is at present.  (And also more like a toilet or garbage dump.)  And, it is possible that in doing so, we will mess up something that matters for us, as we are dependent upon many other things in order to survive.  But other species, per se, are not the subject of this thread, though I freely admit that we will not survive without some other species also surviving.  But, again, as you say, there are more issues than just whether or not people survive without many of them starving to death, as the quality of life is affected by the amount of nature that is left more or less intact.

Here is an article that might interest you:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morni...ans-fault/

[Pyrrho]

You've constrained the options to such a point that its no longer a "Sofie's Choice". It's easy, put a legal limit on reproduction, and have sterilization become a part of the birthing process. All other options have been explored, as you have stated, and the only other option, if not this, is mass starvation.

...

I had thought it would be such a choice for the vast majority of people.  As I type this, a full third of those who responded to the poll disagree with that as the 'right' answer.  It will be interesting to see if that percentage changes with more responses.  And it is making me wish for a scientific poll of people generally for this question, as I am curious about how people view this matter.

It is also making me interested in polls regarding people's attitudes generally regarding personal choice and how things affect other people.  That is to say, I am interested in the question of what matters more to people, personal choice, or the effects of personal choices on others.  Perhaps it depends on which way a person looks at the question.  To relate this general idea to this specific thread, maybe it depends on whether one is thinking about one's own choice or about someone else's choice and its possible effect on one.  Or in other words, one may view the question differently as someone who is going to starve, than as one who is making the choice.

[Exian]

It brings to mind the anti-vaxxers and herd immunization.

[Exian]

At this point a majority agrees.

[Pyrrho]

It brings to mind the anti-vaxxers and herd immunization.

Excellent analogy.  Personal choice versus the effects on others.