How long before a limit is put in place?

[Lysander]

I'm really talking in terms of years here, maybe decades. It's quite clear that the population is climbing and climbing, and with advances in medicine there are only so many resources and so much space to go round.

It actually worked in China [and they've now increased the limit from 1 to 2]. How long do you think before we see it in the UK?

I don't think "never" is a realistic answer. Given the growth as it is, the limit will have to be put in place at some point.

I also don't think "well, people are dying too" is a realistic argument since people are living longer now more than ever and medicine has come up with better and better ways to keep people alive.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/nov/06/uk-population-increase-births-migration

 

[Lysander]

All studies point to the population rise flat lining eventually.

Of course it will. Populations always level off. Doesn't matter if it's the human race or a petri dish of nematodes. Things get to a point where there is either no more physical room or no more resources to support the population.

This whole thread was a failure from the start.

How exactly did you work that one out?

It's not about land area, it's about resources.

Precisely this.

In b4 someone posts that bloody George Carlin video.

 

[Lysander]

It does matter if it's the human race. The population in the developed world is stagnating (or even decreasing) right now and it's not due to lack of resources. We have (or can afford buying) plenty of those to support much higher levels of fertility so the stagnation has completely different causes (educational, cultural etc).



That's an easy one, overpopulation is not an issue. You have it backwards as, in most developed nations, the issue is insufficient population growth and the steadily decreasing ratio between working adults and the elderly who need support.

I used to be on your side of the fence and went round telling people that overpopulation is not an issue. But there's a difference between saying it's
not an issue and that it's never an issue.

As far as I see it, all I see is landspace diminishing and diminishing, with more buildings contructed and less and less natural land remaining. But you can't say the two are not connected. There would not be more and more properties built if there were no people to live in them.

 

[Lysander]

The state should not fund children and people should not automatically have the right to have them. I think people should have to pass tests to have children.

Interesting idea. Means or merits tests, or both? What kinds of questions or topics would you propose?

I can't see this working in reality though. The "it's my right to have kids" backlash would be insufferable.

 

[Lysander]

What about accidental births? Do you kill the child?

What if the child is born and they don't meet your birthing standards. Do you kill the child?

To be fair, this isn't totally ridiculous. We put down animals for all sorts of reasons, such as they're ill, we don't like them, they're inconvenient etc etc. Why not do the same with children.

Of course, this will never be seen as acceptable, I'm aware of that. It's just that because we're human, we attain right of species priority just because we're dominant. But if you look at it absolutely, killing a pet because you can't be bothered to look after it is just as valid as killing a kid because you can't be bothered to look after it.

 

[Lysander]

Sometimes women abort little babies for convenience, it doesn't seem that much of a stretch.

That's because, as far as I'm aware, a foetus isn't legally thought of as being "alive" and independent. Once something can breathe for itself it falls into that category. Someone can elaborate on this if they have more knowledge of it.

 

[Lysander]

The words you are looking for are eugenics and social darwinism.

I don't see why it would necessarily be a bad thing. The only downside is people wouldn't necessarily be able to continue their own bloodline, but not everyone should do that anyway.

 

[Lysander]

The concept of 'overpopulation' is effectively a myth at our current levels. We have more than enough space and, crucially, 'we have science'.

What are we going to do, create more land?

 

[Lysander]

Indeed.

Diversity is one of our core strengths - without it we are weaker as a species. Besides, you can't really judge the potential of a child by looking at the parents - genetics skips generations & a vast majority of aspects regarding intelligence & cognitive ability develop during childhood through experiences & environment.

The biggest irony I've noticed is those who advocate breeding controls or social Darwinism would in reality be the first rotten fruit to be trimmed from the genetic tree.

What I'm reading from this, and forgive me if I'm wrong, is that not all bad trees grow bad apples. Occasionally, because some genius has been spawned somewhere down the line of the mentally deficient, there's a minute chance that another might crawl out the woodwork from an otherwise daft family. So do we advocate letting these people breed in the hope that another Nobel Prize Winner comes along once in a blue moon? Surely it makes more sense to keep the good factories open and shut the bad ones down.