Should There Be International Population Cap Law?

[jankren]

World's population is rising rapidly and I think there should be global concrete step in controlling it.

I believe there should be population cap similar to the carbon cap, except the cap is in accordance to the size of the country or economic status (agricultural countries get a bit leniency for example).

[Rt. Hon. Gentleman]

LET US KILL ALL THE COMMUNIST CHILDREN! YEAH!

How, pray, would you enforce such a population cap? Murder? Or would it be more a case of issuing mild disapprovals of them?

[lordoftheT]

LET US KILL ALL THE COMMUNIST CHILDREN! YEAH!

How, pray, would you enforce such a population cap? Murder? Or would it be more a case of issuing mild disapprovals of them?

The International Board of Population Control wishes to inform you that they are now glaring menacingly in the direction of you and yours.

[Rt. Hon. Gentleman]

The International Board of Population Control wishes to inform you that they are now glaring menacingly in the direction of you and yours.

The Rt. Hon. Gentleman wishes to cordially inform the IBPC precisely where they can glare at.

[TheTrainee]

The best way to deal with population is to
1) encourage contraception
2) education
3) raise standards of living

The problem, ie that perceived ramifications of population, is less about population and more about consumption.

[Morkonan]

The best way to deal with population is to
1) encourage contraception
2) education
3) raise standards of living

...

Absolutely correct! A++

[Salem1]

The problem, ie that perceived ramifications of population, is less about population and more about consumption.

This. Our teacher in natural science showed us a graph today, basically each person is a ''foot'' who takes up a certain amount of land that makes what they use. Thus, the higher the score the more land needed to cater to their consumption. It looked like this:

USA - 10 (world's worst)
Sweden - 6
Average - 2.2
The maximum that Earth can support per person, if every person gets the same amount - 1.8

An utopia will of course never happen, but this is quite interesting. If the US came down to our level and we effectivised our level, we would have a lot of room for improvement and would probably be at a sustainable rate.

[jankren]

Its a fact that there is nothing good about massive population and all countries with huge population are having problems.

I know how to enforce the regulation is tricky but there should be a way.

LET US KILL ALL THE COMMUNIST CHILDREN! YEAH!

How, pray, would you enforce such a population cap? Murder? Or would it be more a case of issuing mild disapprovals of them?

I dunno why people take my opinion the wrong way.

Im not calling for mass massacres.

Im merely raising concern about the state of global rapid population growth and how to control it.

China is heavily controlling theirs and they dont resort to mass murders.

The best way to deal with population is to
1) encourage contraception
2) education
3) raise standards of living

The problem, ie that perceived ramifications of population, is less about population and more about consumption.

True.

But most countries are not taking population control seriously even though its in their own best interest.

[hellheaven1987]

China is heavily controlling theirs and they dont resort to mass murders.

Lol, what??

Chinese government only set the rule; common people are those who kill their infant privately, mostly female infants.

Good thing is there is something call abortion now.

Personally I think it is too late to control world population; overall, the problem would just explose in 2050, about 40 years from now. So why bother??

[Jaketh]

thats why NASA is going to Mars, we can send our unwanted and excess humans their

[hellheaven1987]

thats why NASA is going to Mars, we can send our unwanted and excess humans their

I don't think it is fast enough; the problem is already in critical level which would cause serious trouble within 50 years, but Mar colonization would not happen for next two hundred years.

[roy34543]

I don't think it is fast enough; the problem is already in critical level which would cause serious trouble within 50 years, but Mar colonization would not happen for next two hundred years.

We could always send them to "venus" I suppose.

[TheTrainee]

Also, one could change the tax code to discourage (or at least not implicitly encourage) children, tax-wise. I don't see that being particularly effective and it would be rather punitive toward the poor, which would only make poor children less well off.

[jankren]

Also, one could change the tax code to discourage (or at least not implicitly encourage) children, tax-wise. I don't see that being particularly effective and it would be rather punitive toward the poor, which would only make poor children less well off.

Yeah, thats why Im really wondering whats the best solution for population regulation which wont end up punishing the already most disadvantaged.

For example in Indonesia, since the 1970s the government has been implementing a four-member-planned-family program in which the government encourage people not to have more than two children and provide free services at local clinics to stop the mothers from having any more babies (I dunno what the treatment is called in English).

This program is working very well except in isolated areas or among conservative religious people who believe using contraceptives is a sin.

[bleach]

World's population is rising rapidly and I think there should be global concrete step in controlling it.

Globalism is part of the problem, not the solution.


Countries with a high standard of living are already reproducing at a level which is, at best, barely meeting the replacement rate, often substantially below it. Those countries need do nothing about population control, except refuse to allow booming Third World populations across their borders and stop foreign aid to their countries.

The right to dump population into countries which can afford the added burden has allowed a number of poorer countries to pstave off the consequences of reproduction beyond their means of support for a little while longer, and in the meantime kept a few corrupt regimes from facing the pressures of an growing, unappy citizenry, thereby prolonging their own authority.

Who does this situation benefit? In the long run we are probably headed towards a world where the developed countries will (or rather, have already begun to) economically buckle under the stress of pop. dumping while the 3rd continues to stagnate or even regresses when they are still breeding 6,8,10 children to a family and there is nowhere left to go.

I believe there should be population cap similar to the carbon cap, except the cap is in accordance to the size of the country or economic status (agricultural countries get a bit leniency for example).

I propose we could solve overpopulation far more effectively by forcing every booming country to face the full brunt of the consequences as soon as possible. That means no immigration rights and no foreign aid.

Back in 1984 the First World poured out our hearts and bank accounts to end starvation in Ethiopia. The population of 44 million then has grown to about 78 million now. All the starving African kids grew up and had families of twelve. By 2050 the population is projected to reach about 169 million. This is a country which faced famine at 26% of that size...

Should we therefore give them enough food so the current generation of starving Africans can juuuuuust survive long enough to pump out another 10-12 babies per couple?

Or would it be more humane and rational to let the kids starve now so the country can stabilize its growth and maybe, hopefully, develop to a level where they are no longer reproducing out of control?

Or maybe some peoples will never have the prudence or intelligence to achieve a level above subsistence farming, which makes the whole endeavor of population stability fruitless however you approach it.

Regardless, the disproportionate nature of pop. growth renders the ideal of a global(ist) solution inane. There is no global population problem. There is a Third World population problem. Some countries may solve it and prosper, others may not and will fail. But it is the fate they have created for themselves.

The best way to deal with population is to
...
3) raise standards of living

I agree, but how do you do it?

The countries in the world with high standrads of living have achieved that through their own success. I am struggling to think of a country which was simply given a high standard of living and has maintained it.

I can, however, think of some countries that have thrown away or squandered inherited development, most of them in Africa and South America.

Can you merely give people education and a developed infrastructure and expect them to suddenly become as sophisticated as you would like them to be?

[jankren]

Globalism is part of the problem, not the solution.


Countries with a high standard of living are already reproducing at a level which is, at best, barely meeting the replacement rate, often substantially below it. Those countries need do nothing about population control, except refuse to allow booming Third World populations across their borders and stop foreign aid to their countries.

The right to dump population into countries which can afford the added burden has allowed a number of poorer countries to pstave off the consequences of reproduction beyond their means of support for a little while longer, and in the meantime kept a few corrupt regimes from facing the pressures of an growing, unappy citizenry, thereby prolonging their own authority.

Who does this situation benefit? In the long run we are probably headed towards a world where the developed countries will (or rather, have already begun to) economically buckle under the stress of pop. dumping while the 3rd continues to stagnate or even regresses when they are still breeding 6,8,10 children to a family and there is nowhere left to go.




I propose we could solve overpopulation far more effectively by forcing every booming country to face the full brunt of the consequences as soon as possible. That means no immigration rights and no foreign aid.

Back in 1984 the First World poured out our hearts and bank accounts to end starvation in Ethiopia. The population of 44 million then has grown to about 78 million now. All the starving African kids grew up and had families of twelve. By 2050 the population is projected to reach about 169 million. This is a country which faced famine at 26% of that size...

Should we therefore give them enough food so the current generation of starving Africans can juuuuuust survive long enough to pump out another 10-12 babies per couple?

Or would it be more humane and rational to let the kids starve now so the country can stabilize its growth and maybe, hopefully, develop to a level where they are no longer reproducing out of control?

Or maybe some peoples will never have the prudence or intelligence to achieve a level above subsistence farming, which makes the whole endeavor of population stability fruitless however you approach it.

Regardless, the disproportionate nature of pop. growth renders the ideal of a global(ist) solution inane. There is no global population problem. There is a Third World population problem. Some countries may solve it and prosper, others may not and will fail. But it is the fate they have created for themselves.

Woah, get off your western supremacist high horse.

Back in 1984 the First World poured out our hearts and bank accounts to end starvation in Ethiopia. The population of 44 million then has grown to about 78 million now. All the starving African kids grew up and had families of twelve. By 2050 the population is projected to reach about 169 million. This is a country which faced famine at 26% of that size...

Should we therefore give them enough food so the current generation of starving Africans can juuuuuust survive long enough to pump out another 10-12 babies per couple?

Or would it be more humane and rational to let the kids starve now so the country can stabilize its growth and maybe, hopefully, develop to a level where they are no longer reproducing out of control?

Or maybe some peoples will never have the prudence or intelligence to achieve a level above subsistence farming, which makes the whole endeavor of population stability fruitless however you approach it.

Regardless, the disproportionate nature of pop. growth renders the ideal of a global(ist) solution inane. There is no global population problem. There is a Third World population problem. Some countries may solve it and prosper, others may not and will fail. But it is the fate they have created for themselves.

Its easy for you to say this because you happened to be born by chance in a developed country. But what if you were born on the other side? It wont be so pretty anymore, eh?

Instead of halting all humanitarian aid, why dont just make the aid includes the population control program which educates the local populace of the benefits of family limit and provides free contraceptive treatments?

Or maybe some peoples will never have the prudence or intelligence to achieve a level above subsistence farming, which makes the whole endeavor of population stability fruitless however you approach it.

Educate yourself with books like Guns, Germs and Steel first before making such racist statement.

Just like you, the Africans too just happened to be born in Africa by geographical luck.

Do you think if you were born in the middle of an African jungle you would automatically be more intelligent than the native Africans just because you are European?

[bleach]

Woah, get off your western supremacist high horse.

Its easy for you to say this because you happened to be born by chance in a developed country. But what if you were born on the other side? It wont be so pretty anymore, eh?

...

Educate yourself with books like Guns, Germs and Steel first before making such racist statement.

Just like you, the Africans too just happened to be born in Africa by geographical luck.

Do you think if you were born in the middle of an African jungle you would automatically be more intelligent than the native Africans just because you are European?

It doesn't matter. I am not interested in hypotheticals. We can go on imagining hypothetical situations all day without coming any closer to a solution of real world problems.

The reality is that Europe is highly developed, and does not have an overpopulation problem.

Africa and the rest of the underdeveloped world has a huge overpopulation problem.

Instead of halting all humanitarian aid, why dont just make the aid includes the population control program which educates the local populace of the benefits of family limit and provides free contraceptive treatments?

That's great if it works.

What evidence do you have that it DOES work?

I know that Third World immigrants to Western countries reproduce at a far higher rate than the natives of those countries. This is in spite of better education and available, often free contraceptives.

I doubt any amount of money can convince people that their actions will have negative long-term consequences. My experience tells me that most people learn from trial and error--making mistakes and facing the bitter results. In this case, i do not see why we should delay the natural learning process any longer than is necessary.

[Prodigal]

China is heavily controlling theirs and they dont resort to mass murders.

Are you so sure about that? You can't believe the sort of corruption that goes on as a result of population control there.

[Kjertesvein]

People mean resources for poorer countrys. Technology mean resources for richer countrys.

There wil allways be a 'poorer' country some where on earth, and only a very few countrys have reached their industrial revolution jet. China and India is in their revolution now - Remind me how long ours took again (and cut it in half because of todays technology)?

[persianfan247]

I don't know I like the idea, but as some people have already said the problem of implementing the idea and I can imagine it would be a lot harder for less developed countries to carry through any policy like that.