Reducing human population, how do we do it without wholesale disaster?

nvidiot · 2nd November 2011, 02:33 AM

Yet another idle-on-the-way-home-post from Nvidiot...

I've seen a few threads posted which have brought up the issue of human population and the problems we face. Most seem to regard at least another 20-30 years of population growth as an inevitability. I don't know if the ecology of Earth can support that many humans without wholesale destruction of the environment, and even then it would only last as long as the resources did. Even with something like fusion power and a doubling of yeilds on common crops, it would probably collapse in a heap and cause a lot of misery.

The question then becomes, if we want to reduce the population of humanity to something much more sustainable, how do we do so reasonably quickly without harming the humans we have?

The only way I can see to do it quickly and effectively given the present population and demographics is that we lose a fair chunk deliberately or accidentally through disease, war or even active genocide. This is of course abhorrent, and I wouldn't suggest these are reasonable options, just effective ones. So is there any other way?

To provide a base figure to aim at, pulled completely out of the air: 3 billion with a self sustaining population within say 10% either way. Has to be achieved in a short timescale, sub 30 years. Is that even

I'm racking my mind to come up with a way of doing it without being a mass murderer...

lionking · 2nd November 2011, 02:39 AM

Not only can't it be done, but it needn't be done. This sort of doomsday scenario has been in vogue for many years. It was wrong then. It's wrong now.

arthwollipot · 2nd November 2011, 02:39 AM

I'm not entirely sure that wholesale culling of humans is necessary. We should be putting a brake on population growth, certainly. But our biggest problems, as I understand it, are poverty and uneven distribution of infrastructure and resources such as food and clean water. Both of which are, in theory at least, addressable without resorting to genocide.

MaGZ · 2nd November 2011, 02:41 AM

Withhold all aid to the Third World and let their population decline to a self-supporting level.

Aepervius · 2nd November 2011, 02:56 AM

If you want to ignore all human feeling : The probably easiest way is to cut off all vaccine program , food program , medicament/drug and water program to the 3rd world. Also make sure food surplus in first world country are destroyed beyond what is normally used, none sold to the 3rd world, or if sold at exorbitant price. Campaign all over the 3rd world to NOT use preservative. Recommend syringe reusing. Forbid using blood test. Wait 20 years. No overpopulation. Could be a problem to find empty ground for more mass graves.

nvidiot · 2nd November 2011, 03:08 AM

Should have known MaGZ would approve of mass murder.

@ Lionking: I see many claims about a potentially "sustainable" population for humans whilst maintaining ecological diversity. Anything from 1 to 12 billion. I don't know who's right, but I'll go down the argument from ignorance route and suggest that the ecology doesn't seem to be capable of sustaining our present population levels, let alone half again.

How quickly could humanity move (realistically, not just theoretically) to a sustainable population and also not destroy our ecosystems? The political will doesn't see, to be there, and the economic incentives to value external systems we are affecting at zero are quite strong.

nvidiot · 2nd November 2011, 03:09 AM

Originally Posted by Aepervius

If you want to ignore all human feeling : The probably easiest way is to cut off all vaccine program , food program , medicament/drug and water program to the 3rd world. Also make sure food surplus in first world country are destroyed beyond what is normally used, none sold to the 3rd world, or if sold at exorbitant price. Campaign all over the 3rd world to NOT use preservative. Recommend syringe reusing. Forbid using blood test. Wait 20 years. No overpopulation. Could be a problem to find empty ground for more mass graves.

So that would be another vote for "it couldn't be done without wholesale misery"?

lionking · 2nd November 2011, 03:24 AM

Originally Posted by nvidiot

Should have known MaGZ would approve of mass murder.

@ Lionking: I see many claims about a potentially "sustainable" population for humans whilst maintaining ecological diversity. Anything from 1 to 12 billion. I don't know who's right, but I'll go down the argument from ignorance route and suggest that the ecology doesn't seem to be capable of sustaining our present population levels, let alone half again.

How quickly could humanity move (realistically, not just theoretically) to a sustainable population and also not destroy our ecosystems? The political will doesn't see, to be there, and the economic incentives to value external systems we are affecting at zero are quite strong.

You covered it in the OP. 30 years or so will see a peak. Sooner if more countries move out of the third world.

In any case, nothing can or will be done about it. Even China has changed it's one child policy because of the impact it will have on it's aging population.

Old man · 2nd November 2011, 03:48 AM

Originally Posted by nvidiot

The question then becomes, if we want to reduce the population of humanity to something much more sustainable, how do we do so reasonably quickly without harming the humans we have?

To provide a base figure to aim at, pulled completely out of the air: 3 billion with a self sustaining population within say 10% either way. Has to be achieved in a short timescale, sub 30 years.

I'm racking my mind to come up with a way of doing it without being a mass murderer...

No.

The only possible option (given your stipulation) is to reduce the total number of births to zero. Assuming that happens, the average rate of death world wide is only about 1 of 100 people, so you might get to below 6 million in 30 years, but 3 million will take more like 50. Then, of course, you'll be facing a very different problem...

I wonder though... what would the population curve look like if everyone born before today were rendered sterile?

paiute · 2nd November 2011, 04:39 AM

Originally Posted by nvidiot

The question then becomes, if we want to reduce the population of humanity to something much more sustainable, how do we do so reasonably quickly without harming the humans we have?

We don't have to do a thing. Nature will try to take care of the problem. Seven, eight, nine billion humans is a big inviting Petri dish in which the evolution of something, probably a virulent and readily-transmitted virus, will happen. Think HIV transmitted like the common cold, or a return of a Spanish flu variant. Maybe an antibiotic-resistant bubonic plague strain.

Eddie Dane · 2nd November 2011, 04:52 AM

Originally Posted by paiute

We don't have to do a thing. Nature will try to take care of the problem. Seven, eight, nine billion humans is a big inviting Petri dish in which the evolution of something, probably a virulent and readily-transmitted virus, will happen. Think HIV transmitted like the common cold, or a return of a Spanish flu variant. Maybe an antibiotic-resistant bubonic plague strain.

Hmmm.

As I recall, the black plague killed about 40% in some places in Europe.
But we have better sanitation now. I don't think such a high percentage would be killed by a new plague.

In the bad part of Calcutta maybe.

nvidiot · 2nd November 2011, 04:56 AM

Originally Posted by paiute

We don't have to do a thing. Nature will try to take care of the problem. Seven, eight, nine billion humans is a big inviting Petri dish in which the evolution of something, probably a virulent and readily-transmitted virus, will happen. Think HIV transmitted like the common cold, or a return of a Spanish flu variant. Maybe an antibiotic-resistant bubonic plague strain.

Did you miss the "without harming the humans we have" part? I'm trying to see if there is something other than the unsettling dichotomy of "everything will work out with technology and education and there's nothing we can do about it anyway" or "massive loss of life and severe culling of the population through disease, pestilence, famine or ecological collapse".

Okay, so thinking a bit more about it of course a 3 billion figure with a short timescale is impossible. Let's set that as a figure to be reached by say... 2150. How would you humanely, and environmentally beneficially, reduce the population of humanity to such numbers? By that timescale?

I understand that demography is a hump we have to get over, but the longer it goes the worse it gets for future generations of humans.

I dunno, I'm not confident that humans have enough incentive quickly enough to stop such a mass die off and the misery that will entail. I look to modern technology and its likely developments based on what we can see coming, and I dont think we have enough in the toolbox to fix this problem. And I look at national and international diplomacy, and I don't think we have enough political will, let alone agreement, to get something done that could prevent or alleviate the inevitable collapse that appears to be coming.

I'm certainly coming off as a glass is not particularly full guy, but I'm searching for a tap...

X · 2nd November 2011, 06:28 AM

If you're not going to actively harm huge numbers of living people (and I hope we all find that an abhorrent idea), then the only option left is reducing the reproduction rate to a level below population-replacement. In other words, a one-child-only program. But with the requisite public education and cultural shift to ensure that we don't wind up with a male-heavy population.

For my part, I decided years ago (for this and many other reasons) that if I ever do have children, I will only have one.

arthwollipot · 2nd November 2011, 06:31 AM

When voluntary, this idea is good.

paiute · 2nd November 2011, 06:55 AM

Originally Posted by nvidiot

Did you miss the "without harming the humans we have" part?

No, but "we" aren't doing it. Nature is.

paiute · 2nd November 2011, 06:58 AM

Originally Posted by nvidiot

...I'm not confident that humans have enough incentive quickly enough to stop such a mass die off....

You overestimate our ability to come up with a cure for a viral epidemic. Like I said, what if HIV were as robust as a rhinovirus? Given what we know about viral mutations, it is only a matter of time before one goes marching through the human population like Sherman through Georgia.

Crossbow · 2nd November 2011, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by MaGZ

Withhold all aid to the Third World and let their population decline to a self-supporting level.

This rather reminds me of Scrooge who said something like:

"Well then let them die, and do it quickly in order to decrease the surplus population."

While saying such things often makes for good fiction, this is one of the few times that I have seen anyone advocate such a thing in reality.

jasonpatterson · 2nd November 2011, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by X

If you're not going to actively harm huge numbers of living people (and I hope we all find that an abhorrent idea), then the only option left is reducing the reproduction rate to a level below population-replacement. In other words, a one-child-only program. But with the requisite public education and cultural shift to ensure that we don't wind up with a male-heavy population.

For my part, I decided years ago (for this and many other reasons) that if I ever do have children, I will only have one.

Though it probably wouldn't work in the specified timescale, a 2 child family (or at least a total of 2 children per person) also works. There are going to be people who voluntarily (or involuntarily) have 0 or 1 kids for any number of reasons, and there will be a number of kids who die before having their own. Even if you figure that there will be 1.9 breeding kids per family after these affects occur, in 5 generations the population has been reduced by 23%.

jasonpatterson · 2nd November 2011, 10:21 AM

The bigger problem is that a program like this would either have to be imposed on the entire planet (not likely to happen any time soon) or be voluntary. If it's voluntary, then we're selecting for any genetic traits that might cause someone to have more than 2 kids, whatever those might be. There is an Asimov quotation that says it better, but I couldn't find it.

BowlOfRed · 2nd November 2011, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by X

For my part, I decided years ago (for this and many other reasons) that if I ever do have children, I will only have one.

"Congratulations, X. I see you're going to have triplets."

Wowbagger · 2nd November 2011, 10:40 AM

The educated and wealthy tend to have fewer children than the poor and ignorant.

If we can generate more wealth and knowledge throughout the world, not only would the population naturally decline in numbers, but everyone alive would ALSO be better educated and wealthier!

seayakin · 2nd November 2011, 10:48 AM

One of the problems with population doomsday scenarios that it looks at it in almost a geographic all or nothing. I see deaths already happening in developing world due to overpopulation because current food distribution systems, etc. cannot meet the needs of the population (which is not to say that food distribution is at its most efficient).

However, I think to some extent, western democracies have shown the path to a more benign path of to population decline. Most western democracies are not increasing in population due to reproductive rates and this can be largely attributed to ensuring the rights of women and education. However, the wild card in this is that if this could be even provided for everyone in the world, does it also produce a world population that wants to consume resources like a western democracy?

Mark6 · 2nd November 2011, 11:09 AM

Give women education, control over their money, cheap (better yet, free) birth control, and let them make their own decisions.

Seems to work in First World.

Mark6 · 2nd November 2011, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by BowlOfRed

"Congratulations, X. I see you're going to have triplets."

You know that selective abortion is possible?

I know a woman who started out as a twin, but her sister was aborted. Their mother did not want the bother of two babies at the same time.

the PC apeman · 2nd November 2011, 11:40 AM

Ask the Golgafrinchams about their B Ark.

lionking · 2nd November 2011, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

The educated and wealthy tend to have fewer children than the poor and ignorant.

If we can generate more wealth and knowledge throughout the world, not only would the population naturally decline in numbers, but everyone alive would ALSO be better educated and wealthier!

Correct answer

lionking · 2nd November 2011, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by Mark6

Give women education, control over their money, cheap (better yet, free) birth control, and let them make their own decisions.

Seems to work in First World.

Another correct answer.

Hellbound · 2nd November 2011, 11:59 AM

Easy.

Forget wholesale disaster.

Go with specifically-targetted, surgically applied, lovingly hand-crafted disaster.

dogjones · 2nd November 2011, 12:06 PM

Use a COMB (Counter-Orientation Metamorphosizing Beam) to turn everyone gay.

ZirconBlue · 2nd November 2011, 12:28 PM

Contraceptives in the water supply*.

Originally Posted by jasonpatterson

The bigger problem is that a program like this would either have to be imposed on the entire planet (not likely to happen any time soon) or be voluntary.

You could just impose it in the countries with high population growth*.

*Not that I'm advocating this.

Weak Kitten · 2nd November 2011, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

The educated and wealthy tend to have fewer children than the poor and ignorant.

If we can generate more wealth and knowledge throughout the world, not only would the population naturally decline in numbers, but everyone alive would ALSO be better educated and wealthier!

Yup, this one has worked all around the world. It may not be the quick fix that some people might like but it is the best fix and we know it works.

Combined with a cultural view that contraception is good and women are for more than just babies it is a perfect solution.

debunker of debunker · 2nd November 2011, 01:06 PM

Education - employment. educated countries have low or negative population growth.

It is necessary to stop the growth or change our levels of individual consumption .

The human race now takes over 100% of the worlds renewable resources each year. Doesn't take a genius to figure out that will end badly.

So fewer of us or each of lives with less. Or shall I say those of us in the West live with a lot less.

mrgrouch · 2nd November 2011, 01:07 PM

implement a "one child" policy.

what? what you mean that's communism? damn communists... why did they have to give a bad name to all the good ideas?

Humes fork · 2nd November 2011, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by Aepervius

If you want to ignore all human feeling : The probably easiest way is to cut off all vaccine program , food program , medicament/drug and water program to the 3rd world. Also make sure food surplus in first world country are destroyed beyond what is normally used, none sold to the 3rd world, or if sold at exorbitant price. Campaign all over the 3rd world to NOT use preservative. Recommend syringe reusing. Forbid using blood test. Wait 20 years. No overpopulation. Could be a problem to find empty ground for more mass graves.

In other words, Jenny McCarthy is a hero?

BowlOfRed · 2nd November 2011, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by Mark6

You know that selective abortion is possible?

Yes, but the response became much less pithy with any of my attempts to make note of that ahead of time. I figured I'd wait for X to comment if it was relevant.

!Kaggen · 2nd November 2011, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

The educated and wealthy tend to have fewer children than the poor and ignorant.

If we can generate more wealth and knowledge throughout the world, not only would the population naturally decline in numbers, but everyone alive would ALSO be better educated and wealthier!

Correlation or causation?

Wealth certainly does not always result in less children. In Africa it is often the opposite as with more wealth one can have more wives and therefore more children.

Education also does not always result in less children. The Mormons are hardly poorly educated.

h.g.Whiz · 2nd November 2011, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

When voluntary, this idea is good.

I agree.

h.g.Whiz · 2nd November 2011, 01:46 PM

An Essay on the Principle of Population Thomas Malthus

Probably no more shattering book than the Essay on Population has ever been, or ever will be, written. H.G.Wells - Anticipations (pg.178)

Mark6 · 2nd November 2011, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

Wealth certainly does not always result in less children. In Africa it is often the opposite as with more wealth one can have more wives and therefore more children.

For the man involved, yes. For population as a whole, no. Women in polygamous marriages almost always have fewer children than women in the same society, but with only one husband. Since what matters is the number of children per woman, polygamy decreases overall fertility. Slightly.

Quote:

Education also does not always result in less children. The Mormons are hardly poorly educated.

Yes, religions which explicitely call for as many children as possible are a problem.

rjh01 · 2nd November 2011, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by Mark6

Give women education, control over their money, cheap (better yet, free) birth control, and let them make their own decisions.

Seems to work in First World.

This. Plus give women basic human rights, such as the right to work for a decent wage. Then they have the power and the will to say no more children.

Overpopulation is only a problem in some poor countries. In just about all the developed world the population is either going down, or is increasing at a very slow rate.

2nd November 2011, 02:33 AM	#1
nvidiot Botanical Jedi Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,793	Reducing human population, how do we do it without wholesale disaster? Yet another idle-on-the-way-home-post from Nvidiot... I've seen a few threads posted which have brought up the issue of human population and the problems we face. Most seem to regard at least another 20-30 years of population growth as an inevitability. I don't know if the ecology of Earth can support that many humans without wholesale destruction of the environment, and even then it would only last as long as the resources did. Even with something like fusion power and a doubling of yeilds on common crops, it would probably collapse in a heap and cause a lot of misery. The question then becomes, if we want to reduce the population of humanity to something much more sustainable, how do we do so reasonably quickly without harming the humans we have? The only way I can see to do it quickly and effectively given the present population and demographics is that we lose a fair chunk deliberately or accidentally through disease, war or even active genocide. This is of course abhorrent, and I wouldn't suggest these are reasonable options, just effective ones. So is there any other way? To provide a base figure to aim at, pulled completely out of the air: 3 billion with a self sustaining population within say 10% either way. Has to be achieved in a short timescale, sub 30 years. Is that even I'm racking my mind to come up with a way of doing it without being a mass murderer...
nvidiot Botanical Jedi Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,793	__________________ www.horsemen-gaming.com

2nd November 2011, 02:39 AM	#2
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,688	Not only can't it be done, but it needn't be done. This sort of doomsday scenario has been in vogue for many years. It was wrong then. It's wrong now.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

2nd November 2011, 02:39 AM	#3
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: The other side of your screen Posts: 43,038	I'm not entirely sure that wholesale culling of humans is necessary. We should be putting a brake on population growth, certainly. But our biggest problems, as I understand it, are poverty and uneven distribution of infrastructure and resources such as food and clean water. Both of which are, in theory at least, addressable without resorting to genocide.
	__________________ Jadey (in RvB game thread): I just want to take a moment to commend Arth on his role as Parasitic Alien Tumor. I think he really connected with the character and there were times when I forgot that he was just acting. That's the kind of talent that you can't teach.

2nd November 2011, 02:41 AM	#4
MaGZ Suspended Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 6,319	Withhold all aid to the Third World and let their population decline to a self-supporting level.
MaGZ Suspended Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 6,319

2nd November 2011, 02:56 AM	#5
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,773	If you want to ignore all human feeling : The probably easiest way is to cut off all vaccine program , food program , medicament/drug and water program to the 3rd world. Also make sure food surplus in first world country are destroyed beyond what is normally used, none sold to the 3rd world, or if sold at exorbitant price. Campaign all over the 3rd world to NOT use preservative. Recommend syringe reusing. Forbid using blood test. Wait 20 years. No overpopulation. Could be a problem to find empty ground for more mass graves.
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life.

2nd November 2011, 03:08 AM	#6
nvidiot Botanical Jedi Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,793	Should have known MaGZ would approve of mass murder. @ Lionking: I see many claims about a potentially "sustainable" population for humans whilst maintaining ecological diversity. Anything from 1 to 12 billion. I don't know who's right, but I'll go down the argument from ignorance route and suggest that the ecology doesn't seem to be capable of sustaining our present population levels, let alone half again. How quickly could humanity move (realistically, not just theoretically) to a sustainable population and also not destroy our ecosystems? The political will doesn't see, to be there, and the economic incentives to value external systems we are affecting at zero are quite strong.
nvidiot Botanical Jedi Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,793	__________________ www.horsemen-gaming.com

2nd November 2011, 03:09 AM	#7
nvidiot Botanical Jedi Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,793	Originally Posted by Aepervius If you want to ignore all human feeling : The probably easiest way is to cut off all vaccine program , food program , medicament/drug and water program to the 3rd world. Also make sure food surplus in first world country are destroyed beyond what is normally used, none sold to the 3rd world, or if sold at exorbitant price. Campaign all over the 3rd world to NOT use preservative. Recommend syringe reusing. Forbid using blood test. Wait 20 years. No overpopulation. Could be a problem to find empty ground for more mass graves. So that would be another vote for "it couldn't be done without wholesale misery"?
nvidiot Botanical Jedi Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,793	__________________ www.horsemen-gaming.com

2nd November 2011, 03:24 AM	#8
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,688	Originally Posted by nvidiot Should have known MaGZ would approve of mass murder. @ Lionking: I see many claims about a potentially "sustainable" population for humans whilst maintaining ecological diversity. Anything from 1 to 12 billion. I don't know who's right, but I'll go down the argument from ignorance route and suggest that the ecology doesn't seem to be capable of sustaining our present population levels, let alone half again. How quickly could humanity move (realistically, not just theoretically) to a sustainable population and also not destroy our ecosystems? The political will doesn't see, to be there, and the economic incentives to value external systems we are affecting at zero are quite strong. You covered it in the OP. 30 years or so will see a peak. Sooner if more countries move out of the third world. In any case, nothing can or will be done about it. Even China has changed it's one child policy because of the impact it will have on it's aging population.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

2nd November 2011, 03:48 AM	#9
Old man Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Upstate New York Posts: 388	Originally Posted by nvidiot The question then becomes, if we want to reduce the population of humanity to something much more sustainable, how do we do so reasonably quickly without harming the humans we have? To provide a base figure to aim at, pulled completely out of the air: 3 billion with a self sustaining population within say 10% either way. Has to be achieved in a short timescale, sub 30 years. I'm racking my mind to come up with a way of doing it without being a mass murderer... No. The only possible option (given your stipulation) is to reduce the total number of births to zero. Assuming that happens, the average rate of death world wide is only about 1 of 100 people, so you might get to below 6 million in 30 years, but 3 million will take more like 50. Then, of course, you'll be facing a very different problem... I wonder though... what would the population curve look like if everyone born before today were rendered sterile?

2nd November 2011, 04:39 AM	#10
paiute Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Smack in the middle of a de Broglie wavelength. Posts: 1,140	Originally Posted by nvidiot The question then becomes, if we want to reduce the population of humanity to something much more sustainable, how do we do so reasonably quickly without harming the humans we have? We don't have to do a thing. Nature will try to take care of the problem. Seven, eight, nine billion humans is a big inviting Petri dish in which the evolution of something, probably a virulent and readily-transmitted virus, will happen. Think HIV transmitted like the common cold, or a return of a Spanish flu variant. Maybe an antibiotic-resistant bubonic plague strain.
	__________________ A Novel and Efficient Synthesis of Cadaverine Organic chemistry, vengeful ghosts, and high explosives. What could possibly go wrong? Now free for download! http://www.scribd.com/doc/36568510/A...-of-Cadaverine

2nd November 2011, 04:52 AM	#11
Eddie Dane Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 4,432	Originally Posted by paiute We don't have to do a thing. Nature will try to take care of the problem. Seven, eight, nine billion humans is a big inviting Petri dish in which the evolution of something, probably a virulent and readily-transmitted virus, will happen. Think HIV transmitted like the common cold, or a return of a Spanish flu variant. Maybe an antibiotic-resistant bubonic plague strain. Hmmm. As I recall, the black plague killed about 40% in some places in Europe. But we have better sanitation now. I don't think such a high percentage would be killed by a new plague. In the bad part of Calcutta maybe.

2nd November 2011, 04:56 AM	#12
nvidiot Botanical Jedi Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,793	Originally Posted by paiute We don't have to do a thing. Nature will try to take care of the problem. Seven, eight, nine billion humans is a big inviting Petri dish in which the evolution of something, probably a virulent and readily-transmitted virus, will happen. Think HIV transmitted like the common cold, or a return of a Spanish flu variant. Maybe an antibiotic-resistant bubonic plague strain. Did you miss the "without harming the humans we have" part? I'm trying to see if there is something other than the unsettling dichotomy of "everything will work out with technology and education and there's nothing we can do about it anyway" or "massive loss of life and severe culling of the population through disease, pestilence, famine or ecological collapse". Okay, so thinking a bit more about it of course a 3 billion figure with a short timescale is impossible. Let's set that as a figure to be reached by say... 2150. How would you humanely, and environmentally beneficially, reduce the population of humanity to such numbers? By that timescale? I understand that demography is a hump we have to get over, but the longer it goes the worse it gets for future generations of humans. I dunno, I'm not confident that humans have enough incentive quickly enough to stop such a mass die off and the misery that will entail. I look to modern technology and its likely developments based on what we can see coming, and I dont think we have enough in the toolbox to fix this problem. And I look at national and international diplomacy, and I don't think we have enough political will, let alone agreement, to get something done that could prevent or alleviate the inevitable collapse that appears to be coming. I'm certainly coming off as a glass is not particularly full guy, but I'm searching for a tap...
nvidiot Botanical Jedi Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,793	__________________ www.horsemen-gaming.com

2nd November 2011, 06:28 AM	#13
X Slide Rulez 4 Life Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Launching the army, waiting for Hok to commit her forces (then the moles strike...) Posts: 4,082	If you're not going to actively harm huge numbers of living people (and I hope we all find that an abhorrent idea), then the only option left is reducing the reproduction rate to a level below population-replacement. In other words, a one-child-only program. But with the requisite public education and cultural shift to ensure that we don't wind up with a male-heavy population. For my part, I decided years ago (for this and many other reasons) that if I ever do have children, I will only have one.
	__________________ It is sad that this is necessary: Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly." Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly." [X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis

2nd November 2011, 06:31 AM	#14
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: The other side of your screen Posts: 43,038	When voluntary, this idea is good.
	__________________ Jadey (in RvB game thread): I just want to take a moment to commend Arth on his role as Parasitic Alien Tumor. I think he really connected with the character and there were times when I forgot that he was just acting. That's the kind of talent that you can't teach.

2nd November 2011, 06:55 AM	#15
paiute Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Smack in the middle of a de Broglie wavelength. Posts: 1,140	Originally Posted by nvidiot Did you miss the "without harming the humans we have" part? No, but "we" aren't doing it. Nature is.
	__________________ A Novel and Efficient Synthesis of Cadaverine Organic chemistry, vengeful ghosts, and high explosives. What could possibly go wrong? Now free for download! http://www.scribd.com/doc/36568510/A...-of-Cadaverine

2nd November 2011, 06:58 AM	#16
paiute Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Smack in the middle of a de Broglie wavelength. Posts: 1,140	Originally Posted by nvidiot ...I'm not confident that humans have enough incentive quickly enough to stop such a mass die off.... You overestimate our ability to come up with a cure for a viral epidemic. Like I said, what if HIV were as robust as a rhinovirus? Given what we know about viral mutations, it is only a matter of time before one goes marching through the human population like Sherman through Georgia.
	__________________ A Novel and Efficient Synthesis of Cadaverine Organic chemistry, vengeful ghosts, and high explosives. What could possibly go wrong? Now free for download! http://www.scribd.com/doc/36568510/A...-of-Cadaverine

2nd November 2011, 10:10 AM	#17
Crossbow Seeking Honesty and Sanity Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 6,294	Originally Posted by MaGZ Withhold all aid to the Third World and let their population decline to a self-supporting level. This rather reminds me of Scrooge who said something like: "Well then let them die, and do it quickly in order to decrease the surplus population." While saying such things often makes for good fiction, this is one of the few times that I have seen anyone advocate such a thing in reality.
	__________________ A man's best friend is his dogma.

2nd November 2011, 10:14 AM	#18
jasonpatterson Philanthropic Misanthrope Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Space, The Final Frontier Posts: 2,185	Originally Posted by X If you're not going to actively harm huge numbers of living people (and I hope we all find that an abhorrent idea), then the only option left is reducing the reproduction rate to a level below population-replacement. In other words, a one-child-only program. But with the requisite public education and cultural shift to ensure that we don't wind up with a male-heavy population. For my part, I decided years ago (for this and many other reasons) that if I ever do have children, I will only have one. Though it probably wouldn't work in the specified timescale, a 2 child family (or at least a total of 2 children per person) also works. There are going to be people who voluntarily (or involuntarily) have 0 or 1 kids for any number of reasons, and there will be a number of kids who die before having their own. Even if you figure that there will be 1.9 breeding kids per family after these affects occur, in 5 generations the population has been reduced by 23%.
	__________________ Sandra's seen a leprechaun, Eddie touched a troll, Laurie danced with witches once, Charlie found some goblins' gold. Donald heard a mermaid sing, Susie spied an elf, But all the magic I have known I've had to make myself. - Shel Silverstein

2nd November 2011, 10:21 AM	#19
jasonpatterson Philanthropic Misanthrope Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Space, The Final Frontier Posts: 2,185	The bigger problem is that a program like this would either have to be imposed on the entire planet (not likely to happen any time soon) or be voluntary. If it's voluntary, then we're selecting for any genetic traits that might cause someone to have more than 2 kids, whatever those might be. There is an Asimov quotation that says it better, but I couldn't find it.
	__________________ Sandra's seen a leprechaun, Eddie touched a troll, Laurie danced with witches once, Charlie found some goblins' gold. Donald heard a mermaid sing, Susie spied an elf, But all the magic I have known I've had to make myself. - Shel Silverstein

2nd November 2011, 10:27 AM	#20
BowlOfRed Muse Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Silicon Valley Posts: 535	Originally Posted by X For my part, I decided years ago (for this and many other reasons) that if I ever do have children, I will only have one. "Congratulations, X. I see you're going to have triplets."

2nd November 2011, 10:40 AM	#21
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 13,540	The educated and wealthy tend to have fewer children than the poor and ignorant. If we can generate more wealth and knowledge throughout the world, not only would the population naturally decline in numbers, but everyone alive would ALSO be better educated and wealthier!
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where *you* could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!

2nd November 2011, 10:48 AM	#22
seayakin Muse Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Somewhere on a wave in the North Atlantic Posts: 858	One of the problems with population doomsday scenarios that it looks at it in almost a geographic all or nothing. I see deaths already happening in developing world due to overpopulation because current food distribution systems, etc. cannot meet the needs of the population (which is not to say that food distribution is at its most efficient). However, I think to some extent, western democracies have shown the path to a more benign path of to population decline. Most western democracies are not increasing in population due to reproductive rates and this can be largely attributed to ensuring the rights of women and education. However, the wild card in this is that if this could be even provided for everyone in the world, does it also produce a world population that wants to consume resources like a western democracy?
	__________________ "I kayak, therefore I am"

2nd November 2011, 11:09 AM	#23
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,178	Give women education, control over their money, cheap (better yet, free) birth control, and let them make their own decisions. Seems to work in First World.
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,178	__________________ Gamemaster: "A horde of rotting zombies is shambling toward you. The sign over the door says 'Accounting'"

2nd November 2011, 11:11 AM	#24
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,178	Originally Posted by BowlOfRed "Congratulations, X. I see you're going to have triplets." You know that selective abortion is possible? I know a woman who started out as a twin, but her sister was aborted. Their mother did not want the bother of two babies at the same time.
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,178	__________________ Gamemaster: "A horde of rotting zombies is shambling toward you. The sign over the door says 'Accounting'"

2nd November 2011, 11:40 AM	#25
the PC apeman Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 649	Ask the Golgafrinchams about their B Ark.
the PC apeman Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 649

2nd November 2011, 11:57 AM	#26
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,688	Originally Posted by Wowbagger The educated and wealthy tend to have fewer children than the poor and ignorant. If we can generate more wealth and knowledge throughout the world, not only would the population naturally decline in numbers, but everyone alive would ALSO be better educated and wealthier! Correct answer
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

2nd November 2011, 11:58 AM	#27
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,688	Originally Posted by Mark6 Give women education, control over their money, cheap (better yet, free) birth control, and let them make their own decisions. Seems to work in First World. Another correct answer.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

2nd November 2011, 11:59 AM	#28
Hellbound Abiogenic Spongiform Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: In a handbasket Posts: 8,942	Easy. Forget wholesale disaster. Go with specifically-targetted, surgically applied, lovingly hand-crafted disaster.

2nd November 2011, 12:06 PM	#29
dogjones Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Bermuda Posts: 1,281	Use a COMB (Counter-Orientation Metamorphosizing Beam) to turn everyone gay.
	__________________ It's great being ideologically flexible.

2nd November 2011, 12:28 PM	#30
ZirconBlue Sole Survivor of L-Town Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Wilson, North Carolina, USA, Earth Posts: 11,330	Contraceptives in the water supply. Originally Posted by jasonpatterson* The bigger problem is that a program like this would either have to be imposed on the entire planet (not likely to happen any time soon) or be voluntary. You could just impose it in the countries with high population growth. Not that I'm advocating this.
	__________________ Religion and sex are powerplays. Manipulate the people for the money they pay. Selling skin, selling God The numbers look the same on their credit cards.

2nd November 2011, 12:57 PM	#31
Weak Kitten Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Lost and lonely...will you be my friend? Posts: 1,733	Originally Posted by Wowbagger The educated and wealthy tend to have fewer children than the poor and ignorant. If we can generate more wealth and knowledge throughout the world, not only would the population naturally decline in numbers, but everyone alive would ALSO be better educated and wealthier! Yup, this one has worked all around the world. It may not be the quick fix that some people might like but it is the best fix and we know it works. Combined with a cultural view that contraception is good and women are for more than just babies it is a perfect solution.
	__________________ A quick reminder to all participants that although incomprehensibility is not against the Membership Agreement, incivility is. Please try and remember this, and keep your exchanges polite and respectful. -arthwollipot

2nd November 2011, 01:06 PM	#32
debunker of debunker Student Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 34	Education - employment. educated countries have low or negative population growth. It is necessary to stop the growth or change our levels of individual consumption . The human race now takes over 100% of the worlds renewable resources each year. Doesn't take a genius to figure out that will end badly. So fewer of us or each of lives with less. Or shall I say those of us in the West live with a lot less.

2nd November 2011, 01:07 PM	#33
mrgrouch Muse Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 624	implement a "one child" policy. what? what you mean that's communism? damn communists... why did they have to give a bad name to all the good ideas?
mrgrouch Muse Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 624

2nd November 2011, 01:22 PM	#34
Humes fork Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,369	Originally Posted by Aepervius If you want to ignore all human feeling : The probably easiest way is to cut off all vaccine program , food program , medicament/drug and water program to the 3rd world. Also make sure food surplus in first world country are destroyed beyond what is normally used, none sold to the 3rd world, or if sold at exorbitant price. Campaign all over the 3rd world to NOT use preservative. Recommend syringe reusing. Forbid using blood test. Wait 20 years. No overpopulation. Could be a problem to find empty ground for more mass graves. In other words, Jenny McCarthy is a hero?
	__________________ "Faith is the surrender of the mind; it’s the surrender of reason, it’s the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other mammals. It’s our need to believe, and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me. Of all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated." - Christopher Hitchens

2nd November 2011, 01:25 PM	#35
BowlOfRed Muse Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Silicon Valley Posts: 535	Originally Posted by Mark6 You know that selective abortion is possible? Yes, but the response became much less pithy with any of my attempts to make note of that ahead of time. I figured I'd wait for X to comment if it was relevant.