Discussionator -

Opinion

Some form of population control is vital for the future wellbeing of every country. But it won't happen until it's almost too late - suggesting it would be political suicide.
– Melchior, 2009-09-13 at 17:32:15 (21 comments)

	On 2009-09-13 at 17:37:14, Melchior wrote... I think this is probably one of the greatest challenges facing us in the near future - where to put all these new people, and what to feed them on. But I've never heard it being seriously discussed. Are we burying our heads in the sand?
	On 2009-09-13 at 17:54:24, Lee J Haywood wrote... It's a case of having our cake and eating it - we will have a large population and we will make the planet practically uninhabitable in the process. The benefits of population control are long-term, and humans never think that way as a group.
	On 2009-09-13 at 19:11:09, Baslisks wrote... the way we research technology is to combat our ever growing ways. Growth has settled out as more people can't afford to populate anymore. The reduction in kids is being balanced out by mortality rate. Its more beneficial to promote one or two kids than to have 30 kids.
	On 2009-09-13 at 19:18:28, Lee J Haywood wrote... Of course rates are already below replacement in most European countries - this year the number of pensioners in the UK has exceeded the number of minors for the first time in recorded history.
	On 2009-09-13 at 20:13:15, DigitalBoss wrote... What kind of evidence do you have to backup your claim that population control is necessary? You libs love government control. You actually want the government to tell you when you can reproduce? More nanny-state bullshit. Just exactly who is going to tell me that I cannot reproduce? Fuck a bunch of government.
	On 2009-09-13 at 21:22:16, Thelevellers wrote... It doesn;t necessarily have to be government controlled - it could just be an agreement in society that we will reduce numbers so we can actually live to a reasonable level without forcing some into abject, irreversible, poverty... Obviously the easy way is government control...
	On 2009-09-13 at 21:26:25, Thelevellers wrote... Control is necessary because (with current farming methods) there is not enough planet to feed everyone. Seems simple enough to me? Ok, so cool new tech that increases the amount of food we produce would be cool, but at the moment people seem to be saying that we can just increase the area that is farmed, and increase the size of our cities forever. What about the countryside as somewhere to visit to look at and enjoy because it ISN'T being farmed/lived on intensively? That is the one thing that would 100% definitely make me leave this planet - if the things that I love about it were gone - that is the glorious British countryside, I can't get enough... It was half the reason I had to get out of Norway was lack of green fields in winter...
	On 2009-09-13 at 21:35:39, DigitalBoss wrote... Prove it.
	On 2009-09-13 at 21:42:30, DigitalBoss wrote... I have heard so much liberal progressive fallacy in my life, propaganda, all of it, I don't believe ANY OF IT! You all have drank the kool-aid. I am sure you have been indoctrinated by the BBC, and CNN, and all the government schools in which you have attended.
	On 2009-09-13 at 22:39:59, Lee J Haywood wrote... @Thelevellers: Population is self-limiting, without any imposed control. It's not 'vital' to force it on people, as the topic suggests, but may be sensible in selected areas.
	On 2009-09-13 at 23:48:20, BorgClown wrote... I guess you could have as much kids as you can afford. When they begin to be malnourished or underschooled, please stop. My wife and I decided not to have children, so maybe that makes me not the best advisor.
	On 2009-09-14 at 03:43:02, DigitalBoss wrote... Hence personal responsibility, not government control.
	On 2009-09-14 at 04:08:30, DigitalBoss wrote... @TheBorg: Thank you for saving us from your progeny.
	On 2009-09-14 at 16:52:39, Thelevellers wrote... Actually I have not been in a government school since primary school, it was my parents and discussions with friends FAR more than any 'government indoctrination' that led me to my beliefs - I have thought about this stuff a lot, and went through a phase of looking into conspiracy theories, so have actually questioned a lot of the beliefs I have held for many years. Prove what? Lee may well have removed the edge off one of my arguments, but only the edgem, as I think we should limit population BEFORE it is self limited as that way it would be pleasant to be alive, rather than merely better (maybe) than death.
	On 2009-09-14 at 20:18:21, BorgClown wrote... @DigitalBoss: Ooooh, I'm gonna do better than that. I'm even gonna reduce the population a little, as soon as I get my hands on you.
	On 2009-09-15 at 02:32:13, BorgClown wrote... Hey, DB, Google for images of "El Chavo del ocho", you'll be surprised how much it resembles your avatar.
	On 2009-09-15 at 16:20:19, DigitalBoss wrote... Sorry Borg, no comparision. There will never be another like John Bulushi. I loved him playing Wild Bild Kelso in the movie "1941", that is where the pictures come from. If you haven't seen that movie, you should, it is good.
	On 2009-09-15 at 16:21:15, DigitalBoss wrote... Besides, his gruffy bullish look kinda fits my attitude.
	On 2009-09-16 at 04:44:05, BorgClown wrote... I will look that movie. And afterwards, I will insist that El Chavo del ocho is better.
	On 2009-09-16 at 16:56:25, Thelevellers wrote... I can;t help but read 'El Chavo' as meaning 'The king of the Chavs', which in Britain are the wigga/useless/stupid/aggressive types... :s
	On 2009-09-17 at 04:24:18, BorgClown wrote... I didn't know about the Chavs, but "El Chavo" sounds quite imposing in that violent context. The literal translation of 2El chavo del 8" is "The kid of #8". That's the number of his house in the neighborhood, although that's a joke since the neighborhood has only 7 apartments. The kid is homeless but he lives in a barrel in the shared backyard. Despite being homeless and living off charity, he attends public school. Unfortunately he's a dope because he doesn't eat very well. It was an 80's comedy children show, although reruns have quite a following even today.