I really don't think we're overpopulated. populations rise and drop. we may look at other species and say "theres too many of you for my liking, so you're overpopulated". we can do the same to ourselves, but its purely subjective. If we're theres too many people, we'll stop growing and start dying.

subsidizing children is not indicative of anything. much food is available. schools, materials, housing, all widely available for a growing population.

__________________
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Explain to me how many people you believe the planet can support, and how you arrived at that conclusion.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

If the population grows large enough it will do more than just start dying off. It could make even smaller populations unsustainable. Consider the effects of pollution and the permanent depletion of irreplacable natural resources.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...
And I do not need to know.

Get your daily dose of truth*

* or something approximating it

irreplaceable natural resources will deplete anyway, they are irreplaceable.

i'm all for finding ways to harness replaceable resources, so that the population can keep growing. but if we're dependant on irreplaceable resources always then it doesn't matter, we'll be doomed anyways no matter how large or small the population.

__________________
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Depends on what you mean. The kind we use for energy can gradually be replaced with other resoureces... but that requires having enough of the original resources to fuel the invention and reinvention necessary.
I'm thinking more along the lines of biodiversity and entire ecosystems. We do not need to destroy these things if we keep the population from expanding. In destroying them, we permanently remove possible resources.

I'm a little troubled by the nihilism diplayed by those who argue "There's no such thing as overpopulation". Sure, there's no exact world number. Sure there's no definite "this will end all existence" point...
But there are obviously points where the population leads to overconsumption, increased pollution, more potential for pandemic, and several other factors of increased human suffering. It seems a bit odd to split hairs about what the total population the earth can possibly sustain (ignoring all side effects), when we see real human suffering as a consequence of overgrowing population- the population growth becoming cyclically related to other barriers in development!

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...
And I do not need to know.

Get your daily dose of truth*

* or something approximating it

Its no so much that I offer a number(though I'm sure others could) its the concept itself. There must be a limit, I'm concerned at the lack of resources now, and the suffering thats already being caused.

Its cyclic- how much a human population needs to support itself. For instance, we are converting oil into food into people. When that oil runs out so does the foood, people start to die. If we never use that oil for food, then no-one is ever born to then die from the lack of food. Plus we've got a reserve, and we can make copius amounts of toothpaste out of it.

Probably should have left that bit to Java .

While I'd like to see an end to policies that encourage population growth, your plan would be getting blood from a stone, and is not practical.

Yes, aside from enslaving people's right to procrete to how much money they have(gene quality aside) being rather creepy, its also bad economically. Over the long term that will be absorbed by the market- what was once a luxury of 10k will then become a neccessity, as prices rise to meet the new money they have. Rather quickly you go from being better off and neutured to just being neutured. The same effect will also introduce a market force to encouarge poor smart people to do that aswell, to survive. Theres a reason some things aren't for sale.

Btw, you did 4-9k better than that Loisiana politician.

Get to the point, who you think should live and who should die? do you have a problem with your government which influences welfare and benefits for those with more children or not? do you have a problem with China limiting 2 children per family? do you have a problem with Hitler killing 60 million Jews or do you praise the man for population control? same question about Iraq/Vietnam/WW2 in general, Drezsden bombings etc.

__________________
Let's say the media would have instead chosen to publicize republican McDumb and a democrat Joe Smart.
Obama would have been obscured and completely ignored by the media as Ron Paul was despite raising millions and gathering large crowds
Would you have wasted your vote for Obama when you know that according to all major media polls Obama has no chance in hell and McDumb could end up your president since the race is so tight between McDumb and Joe Smart?

i'm just not so convinced that the loss of biodiersity will result in human suffering. we have been able to farm what we need. are we farming OVER other things we need? well mayhaps. but i don't think it will result in the end of humanity. human suffering probably. but i find i don't really care? I mean, I care about human acheivement. If there is some human suffering, well whatever it takes. for example the great pyramids of egypt, a human acheivement at the cost of slavery, labour, and resources. people could have been better fed or clothed instead. so i'm just trying to explain what i value out of human history. i am not interested in a completely static, but suffering free society.

that said, human acheivements will stop if everything comes crashing down. we can do alot when there is little suffering. but i am just not convinced that we are even close to the kinds of human suffering levels that used to exist with smaller populations. strength and security and safety in numbers. we would be better able to avoid or survive a catastrophe with more numbers not less.

i also believe people have the freedom to control their own genetics. you can't force people to have a baby and you can't force them not to.

__________________
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Believe me, establishing this basic idea is the point. I enjoyed reading that though.

Everyone should live, no-one should die (you know what I mean) I seek prevention- prevent an innocent life from being born (or indeed conceived) to ever more suffering, that condemns the world and others to this suffering, and the harder choices and consequence of questions not asked, action not taken.

I do, for while i believe they should be supported, I disagree with apolicy that provokes growth, which ignores this pressing issue.

China yes I do have a problem, it causes great suffering, and due to its particular culture compounds it. They(we?) are in a terrible position and whilst something like that might be our best chance, I question whether China or any dictatorship can do it equitably or well, but then I question if we can either.

Well, let all questions be dignified with an answer. Hitler is rightly condemned, and I don't think he was ever motivated by the greater good, or indeed any good. War and mass murder is precisely what I seek to avoid. What do you think happens when we all run out of 'living space', where poverty and and criminality surge? When water runs out and the victor lives for another precious day?

The aspect of the wars you mention ofcourse helps with the problem, but no I can never celebrate them.

Growth will reach zero- we make the choice as to whether or not we control our birth rate, or drown each other in blood.

That might be a problem of perception.
You're living in a developed country, as are most of us on this forum. Chances are you do not deal with the problems of overpopulation... and you never will directly.
Overpopulation is largely a problem for the poor in the underdeveloped world... and I don't think you can really say that those suffering the direct effects are better off than people at other times.
The only way this will ever touch your life, if you simply don't care, is through immigration. As the third world becomes more and more overpopulated without further development, expect large numbers to emigrate or at least try. This will likely lead ultimately to many more resources in the advanced world being used to shelter us from the reality of the third world- through attempts to keep immigrants out by whatever means.

In this way the obsession of national borders actually acts as a blinder for the developed world on the horrors of overpopulation in the underdeveloped world. Much the reason immigration is becoming more and more an issue in the US and Europe is directly related to some factors exacerbating those problems.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...
And I do not need to know.

Get your daily dose of truth*

* or something approximating it