Overpopulation: You get to cast the deciding vote.

[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.