The world's population should be at most 50 million.

[Mister Agenda]

Why not 25 million or 1 billion? 1 billion seems pretty sustainable to me. I don't know of any ethical way to produce that kind of decline in a human lifetime.

The world will look very different in a few decades. Nigeria will probably surpass the population of the USA. Europe will lose 30 million or so people; that I would suppose would be largely replaced by immigrants from Africa. The majority of future population growth happens in Africa over the next 40 years. The UN predicts about a 25% chance that world population will stabilize by 2100 (at around 10 billion). With some saying we're already over world carrying capacity, this is very worrisome. Probably the number one thing the average person can do to fight climate change is not have kids of their own and adopt.

[onlinebiker]

Most of the people who support population control, usually think its a good idea for someone else.

Not true. My SO and I both got " fixed" early on - and have no kids.


I went to medical while in the service and tried to get a vasectomy. I was 19 years old. They sent me to a shrink. I wad pissed.

The sanctimonious doctor told me I was too young to make such a decision and I would certainly change my mind. (But apparently I was old enough to join the service, carry a gun, and kill people). 40 years later - still don't want kids..

The problem is the current social mindset that gives tax breaks and incentives to procreate - a holdover of the religious mandate of " go forth and multiply".

That shit needs to end.

[The Valkyrie]

I won't be leaving that many.

[The Grand Nudger]

The problem is the current social mindset that gives tax breaks and incentives to procreate - a holdover of the religious mandate of " go forth and multiply".

Meh more that we're raising the future labor and taxpayers of america.  That's the cynical take, anyway, lol. 

[Mister Agenda]

Often people jump to 'murdering billions' when drastic population reduction is talked about, but proponents are usually talking about 'sterilizing billions', which is also problematic (because billions aren't going to volunteer to be sterilized); but at least it's not outright murder. Like I said, I can't think of an ethical way to accomplish it in a lifetime, and we're in a time crunch. I don't think it's going to be accomplished the 'easy way'.

The UN's predictions (about 9.6 billion people by 2050) are not based on projected resource availability. If we don't shift largely to substitutes, the most plausible prediction I've heard is that it costs more to extract oil than its worth in about 60 years. Under these circumstances, world population would start to drop drastically (the hard way, mainly famine). I personally think alternative energy and algae-based oil substitutes will let us stagger on, but I'm not sure those things will ever be as cheap as cheap oil, which in large part has 'fueled' our population growth over the last century. But so has cheap water, and demand for that will increase at a time when ground water tables are becoming depleted. And these are far from the only resources that will become more difficult or even impossible to obtain.

There are a lot of problems to be solved for 10 billion people to be possible for long. We're great problem solvers, but we only have to drop the ball on one for hundreds of millions or even billions of people to die amid terrible suffering. And Africa is likely to bear the brunt of it (as always, it seems).

[onlinebiker]

Often people jump to 'murdering billions' when drastic population reduction is talked about, but proponents are usually talking about 'sterilizing billions', which is also problematic (because billions aren't going to volunteer to be sterilized); but at least it's not outright murder. Like I said, I can't think of an ethical way to accomplish it in a lifetime, and we're in a time crunch. I don't think it's going to be accomplished the 'easy way'.

The UN's predictions (about 9.6 billion people by 2050) are not based on projected resource availability. If we don't shift largely to substitutes, the most plausible prediction I've heard is that it costs more to extract oil than its worth in about 60 years. Under these circumstances, world population would start to drop drastically (the hard way, mainly famine). I personally think alternative energy and algae-based oil substitutes will let us stagger on, but I'm not sure those things will ever be as cheap as cheap oil, which in large part has 'fueled' our population growth over the last century. But so has cheap water, and demand for that will increase at a time when ground water tables are becoming depleted. And these are far from the only resources that will become more difficult or even impossible to obtain.

There are a lot of problems to be solved for 10 billion people to be possible for long. We're great problem solvers, but we only have to drop the ball on one for hundreds of millions or even billions of people to die amid terrible suffering. And Africa is likely to bear the brunt of it (as always, it seems).

There should be financial incentives to volunteer for sterilization.

I always figured if you have no kids - the government would pay " x". If you have 1 kid already, 1/2 " x", and so on.

I have been accused of trying to " breed out the poor".


Good!


I' ve news for you - the poor think it' s a good idea. Poverty sucks.

[The Grand Nudger]

Humanity faces problems......so lets sterilize the poor!



Allow me to suggest that the poor aren't the source of humanity's problems in those regards we've been discussing. Think things are rough now....wait until Cocksucker Mcprepschool gets control of entire generational demographics at a go. We worry that there isn't enough to go around(there is)..but their solution to that problem will be to eliminate each increasingly wealthy rung of The Poor™ so as to leave more rape and pillage for the wealthiest remainder.

Business as usual, sure, but IDK why anyone would want to cosign it.

[Whateverist]

Most of the people who support population control, usually think its a good idea for someone else.

As someone whose progeny score is still zero, I've got to say it isn't hard and has much to recommend it.

[Alan V]

Most of the people who support population control, usually think its a good idea for someone else.

As someone whose progeny score is still zero, I've got to say it isn't hard and has much to recommend it.

My wife and I decided against having children long ago.  One sister never had children.  Two of my wife's nieces never had children.  Five of my friends never had children.  It's more common now than many suppose, and has great advantages -- early retirement among them.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's the best part, if you don't want kids, you don't have to have them.  Doesn't take an incentive, doesn't require a poor fucking ideological commitment.  

I know..I know, you wont get all that sweet sweet free money the gov just gives us parenting types.  Imma gold plate my toilet this weekend with all that filthy lucre.