Overpopulation

[Cosmic+Amarna]

^But he was sayin bcus they said more likely to actively pursue more sexual partners

 

[MegaWallflower]

^But he was sayin bcus they said more likely to actively pursue more sexual partners

I know, I'm just saying I don't believe that. Not all guys are like that, not all girls are like some. Some are more... sexually active than others.

I'm just saying. Imagine a promiscuous girl going around and sleeping with a lot of guys. At most, how many people could end up pregnant? One. Unless something weird happened. Now say a guy went around sleeping with a lot of girls. It's not likely, but at most, all those girls could have ended up pregnant, ignoring other factors such as fertility and stuff. :d I'm not saying either gender is more likely to do so. :3

 

[Vayne Mechanics]

That's not only untrue, but heavily biased and discriminatory, and to be honest quite offensive.

Evolutionary psychology wants to have a word with you. There have been far more accounts worldwide and in history where men had multiple spouses, but women didn't. Men are more likely to engage in behaviour that promotes and rewards short-term sex than women are. Instances of men where they have sexual access to multiple women has been pretty consistent cross-culturally. It doesn't happen as much in North America as there are laws that present multiple sexual partners as "criminal". However, that doesn't mean your adherence to social norms implies that it's untrue or it doesn't happen elsewhere.

Be offended all you want because I don't give a kupo. If you're honestly going to take such a general statement personally, then that's your fault entirely. I think it'd be wise to take a step back to avoid such blatant enactments of hubris. Not everything that's said is about you.

 

[Cosmic+Amarna]

I know, I'm just saying I don't believe that. Not all guys are like that, not all girls are like some. Some are more... sexually active than others.

I'm just saying. Imagine a promiscuous girl going around and sleeping with a lot of guys. At most, how many people could end up pregnant? One. Unless something weird happened. Now say a guy went around sleeping with a lot of girls. It's not likely, but at most, all those girls could have ended up pregnant, ignoring other factors such as fertility and stuff. :d I'm not saying either gender is more likely to do so. :3

I get you, I understand you. I think that he or me said that because the comment was saying that just because a male is male, that they will want or pursue more sexual partners. What you are talkiing about tho is how females are the ones to become pregers rather than the male, etc.

And I'm not so sure psychology would fully back that statement. There is a wide spectrum of 'sexuality' and it is based off of genetics. There are some females who are more sexually active than some males. There's no denying that men have had multiple spouses,etc. but that prolly has to do with the male misconception of dominance. Unfortunately those thoughts are real because some men don't view women as equals, or other people as equal. Thus some males have felt the entitlement of sex or multiple sexual partners. Not saying that those thoughts or views are true or correct, contrary. But to say that just because a male is a male, I will more likely want more sexual partners is not something that can be answered by Aristotle's two-fold system of logic. Rather the Hindu concept in which something can be both true and false. This is because your statement does not hold true to me, whereas it may to others.

 

[Vayne Mechanics]

Does no one kupoing read?

more likely

That does not insinuate absolute truth. Jesus christ you guys, what the kupo. Like, I'm not even going to try and argue with you because all of you are assuming that I'm implying absolutes. lrn2read.

 

[JustSnilloc]

Mind if I cut your dick off so you can't use it anymore after you have a child? Men are more likely to actively pursue multiple sex partners than women. If you're going to suggest something, it should probably be with the male reproductive system.

An alternative: Crushing your testicles.

I actually intend on getting "fixed" after having 2 children good sir

I'm curious as to how those of you who think limiting couples to X children would do that. (Read a book series about that, once. That was the antagonist's move, but mostly because they were doing a lot of other bad things like ordering people grow certain crops where they live despite not having the right soil or climate for it, and not paying enough attention to why agricultural pursuits should be focused on rather than the rich people getting their way, blah, blah, blah)

Anyways, what I'm wondering is, considering the divorce rate and the number of children born outside of wedlock, would you limit it by couple? So if they break up and got with someone else they could start over with children? Or by woman? Which means the guys could keep having as many kids as they want. Or what? :3

:d Overpopulation is a big problem, but I don't know how it should be fixed.

BTW, it's still possible to have a baby with your tubes tied(seen it happen), and I don't see how women should be altered while men get off with nothing, free to go have more children. :>

I agree, but at the same time, men aren't capable of getting pregnant... It is stupid because some men do impregnate 1000 women and guys like that should be fixed, but idk, it's a burden that the female sex carries and that few males give any thought... It's kind of sad

I think we should start 'removing' less-than-average-intelligent people starting with JustSnilloc.

I... >_>

What is it exactly making me of less than average intelligence? In all actuality that's pretty far from the truth... I may not know the best solution to the issue, but I'm certainly not going to contribute to it, I was throwing out some ideas I had.

 

[Vayne Mechanics]

It's a joke. God damnit you guys. Fucking like, calm your titties or something.

 

[JustSnilloc]

It's a joke. God damnit you guys. kupoing like, calm your titties or something.

Directed at me? thanks I guess?

 

[MegaWallflower]

I agree, but at the same time, men aren't capable of getting pregnant... It is stupid because some men do impregnate 1000 women and guys like that should be fixed, but idk, it's a burden that the female sex carries and that few males give any thought... It's kind of sad

Whoa, you're making it sound like it's all us. I kind of think sperm is needed for a baby. Guys are part of the baby making process, too. Just because they don't get pregnant, doesn't mean they're not part of the problem. It's that mindset that makes guys more likely to do so, I guess. Never have to worry about waking up pregnant, so it's certainly not my problem, hehehe~^o^...-_-

Seriously, though, unless we can think of a way to fix this part of the problem, there's no reason little reason to drag it out. >.> Not everyone's going to agree to being "fixed" after x children, and I feel that the points I brought up still stand. :/

It's a joke. God damnit you guys. kupoing like, calm your titties or something.

I'm sorry if I sounded uptight or something... :c Didn't mean to.

 

[JustSnilloc]

Whoa, you're making it sound like it's all us. I kind of think sperm is needed for a baby. Guys are part of the baby making process, too. Just because they don't get pregnant, doesn't mean they're not part of the problem. It's that mindset that makes guys more likely to do so, I guess. Never have to worry about waking up pregnant, so it's certainly not my problem, hehehe~^o^...-_-

Seriously, though, unless we can think of a way to fix this little, there's no reason little reason to drag it out. >.> Not everyone's going to agree to being "fixed" after x children, and I feel that the points I brought up still stand. :/

Hmm, I'm saying that's how some guys think and are, yeah they are part of the process, but some choose to run and other "unmanly" stuff, not pointing fingers though

What are some solutions that you have in mind? the "x number of children" thing seems to work in my head, perhaps it might not though, let's go back to the topic ^_^

 

[Orion]

Improving and expanding infrastructure is whats needed. Overpopulation becomes a problem when the available resources, services and space become too scarce for the number of people. The solution is to change the infrastructure - build vertically, expand outwards, get more efficient systems in place, better farming practices. Not cut womens' tubes or guys' balls after a single kid. Most sensible first world families that have to raise their own kids will only go up to maybe two kids because anymore starts to be outside their means to provide for. The number of children per families seems to at least correlate with the quality of life, education, hygiene, etc in the region. When you don't have high infant mortality rate or need to depend on as many people working grueling jobs in your family as possible, there's no incentive to have more kids, so people for the most part don't.

 

[Nostalgia]

Improving and expanding infrastructure is whats needed. Overpopulation becomes a problem when the available resources, services and space become too scarce for the number of people. The solution is to change the infrastructure - build vertically, expand outwards, get more efficient systems in place, better farming practices. Not cut womens' tubes or guys' balls after a single kid. Most sensible first world families that have to raise their own kids will only go up to maybe two kids because anymore starts to be outside their means to provide for. The number of children per families seems to at least correlate with the quality of life, education, hygiene, etc in the region. When you don't have high infant mortality rate or need to depend on as many people working grueling jobs in your family as possible, there's no incentive to have more kids, so people for the most part don't.

There is no way make resources less scarce indefinitely because they are ultimately finite. Food production will only grow at an arithmetic rate, which means trouble for the human population as its increase is exponential. I don't agree that accommodating for the growing population is a practical solution because then people will never take responsibility for it. It's like not punishing a toddler for doing something wrong. Naturally, they'll just keep doing it.

Not to sound morbid, but I honestly believe that people won't ever get a clue until it's too late and we've exceeded the carrying capacity, at which point they'll start dying off in the masses.

To respond to the earlier argument from the last page, it's not really a matter of whose sex is to blame. Women reproduce, and men contribute to that process, so all of humanity is to blame. Determining which of the sexes is more inclined to f.uck more often is irrelevant. The point is something should be done to lessen the birth rate to some degree, so that the death rate can contribute in stabilizing various populations throughout the world.

I can't remember who said this on the previous page, but someone asked me how you judge a couple in terms of limiting the number of their offspring. It's simpler than you'd think. If you're a man, do not father more than 2 children to the same woman in your lifetime. If you're a woman, do not give birth to more than 2 children with the same father. I'm not trying to say that couples should split up if they want to have more. What I'm saying is that all we need is to reimburse every 2 people (the mother and father, whether they stay as a couple or not.) From there, the death rate will exceed the birth rate and the population will level off after a number of years.

 

[Orion]

There is no way make resources less scarce indefinitely because they are ultimately finite.

Not really. The only non-finite resources we have are fossil fuels, radioactive elements and some other elements. Everything is is basically infinite, or at least near-infinitely reproducible and recyclable - food, water, plastics, glass. These things don't stop being useable after they'd been made use of the first time.

Food production will only grow at an arithmetic rate, which means trouble for the human population as its increase is exponential.

If we weren't so irrationally terrified of any form of GM crops, the problem could be significantly mitigated. That and crop-towers to conserve space and moisture.

I don't agree that accommodating for the growing population is a practical solution because then people will never take responsibility for it. It's like not punishing a toddler for doing something wrong. Naturally, they'll just keep doing it.

What? But it's in our nature to reproduce and expand, and we're going to keep doing it. If anything, overpopulation forces us to develop cleaner and more efficient technologies, to waste less, and in the future, to seek out entirely new places of habitation.

I can't remember who said this on the previous page, but someone asked me how you judge a couple in terms of limiting the number of their offspring. It's simpler than you'd think. If you're a man, do not father more than 2 children to the same woman in your lifetime. If you're a woman, do not give birth to more than 2 children with the same father. I'm not trying to say that couples should split up if they want to have more. What I'm saying is that all we need is to reimburse every 2 people (the mother and father, whether they stay as a couple or not.) From there, the death rate will exceed the birth rate and the population will level off after a number of years.

And then we can be left with a burgeoning aging population a couple of times down the line, which as Toilet Crusher pointed out, is bad.

 

[Luap]

Mind if I cut your dick off so you can't use it anymore after you have a child? Men are more likely to actively pursue multiple sex partners than women. If you're going to suggest something, it should probably be with the male reproductive system.

An alternative: Crushing your testicles.

Or, a vasectomy.
People still have sex! But no babies and no need for abortion!
woooooooo



Nah, I don't think we're at the point of overpopulation, yet. We're getting there.
The thing about humans is that we can make more and more resources available, which increases out carrying capacity. I imagine we'll go over it eventually, and have a dieback. But I don't think the carrying capacity will even reach an absolute point where no more humans can be sustained.

There are a lot more immediate problems than overpopulation.

 

[Johnny Stooge]

True... That'd probably work out better, it's just something that can easily be done during child birth (tied tubes) and it'd help.

Why do women have to get their tubes tied? What about vasectomies? Doesn't really matter if the women can't give birth if the guy can go kupo up a storm with whoever. And with women's reproductive rights being the issue it is right now in the States, you might want to keep this opinion to yourself.

But would a lessened number of people available to work be such a bad thing? It's pretty kupoing hard to get a job nowadays because there are so many people wanting to do it... The truth is, we don't have enough for as many people as we have. Either the rich give back some, or we have less people, it's the only way to solve the issue

What's the unemployment level in America? Maybe 10%? You're not talking about reducing the population by 10%, you're talking about effectively halving it over a period of time. Aging populations drain social security programs because you end up with more people who use the system than contribute to it. They drive up healthcare premiums because you get more customers that are old and frail than you do young and healthy. Then all the goods and services industries start to slow down because you don't have anyone to do the job - like look after the elderly. If you're still having a hard time comprehending what this means then here: shit costs more and no one is making money.

It is bad.

 

[Orion]

Why do women have to get their tubes tied? What about vasectomies? Doesn't really matter if the women can't give birth if the guy can go kupo up a storm with whoever. And with women's reproductive rights being the issue it is right now in the States, you might want to keep this opinion to yourself.

With reproductive rights as unbalanced as they are already, it would be even worse in addition to have sterilisation procedures applied mostly or only to one gender. Have it be equal between genders or not applied at all.

 

[JustSnilloc]

Why do women have to get their tubes tied? What about vasectomies? Doesn't really matter if the women can't give birth if the guy can go kupo up a storm with whoever. And with women's reproductive rights being the issue it is right now in the States, you might want to keep this opinion to yourself.

Hmm... I said that because it's easier to tell with females, but perhaps it would be just as (if not more) effective to give the male equivalent to all guys who have had two children

What's the unemployment level in America? Maybe 10%? You're not talking about reducing the population by 10%, you're talking about effectively halving it over a period of time. Aging populations drain social security programs because you end up with more people who use the system than contribute to it. They drive up healthcare premiums because you get more customers that are old and frail than you do young and healthy. Then all the goods and services industries start to slow down because you don't have anyone to do the job - like look after the elderly. If you're still having a hard time comprehending what this means then here: shit costs more and no one is making money.

It is bad.

Interesting, I didn't think of that. I suppose this means that "underpopulation" isn't a good solution to "overpopulation" at all.

With reproductive rights as unbalanced as they are already, it would be even worse in addition to have sterilisation procedures applied mostly or only to one gender. Have it be equal between genders or not applied at all.

I honestly wouldn't be opposed to this... We need a method of keeping track of men as well


What Orion posted here...

Improving and expanding infrastructure is whats needed. Overpopulation becomes a problem when the available resources, services and space become too scarce for the number of people. The solution is to change the infrastructure - build vertically, expand outwards, get more efficient systems in place, better farming practices. Not cut womens' tubes or guys' balls after a single kid. Most sensible first world families that have to raise their own kids will only go up to maybe two kids because anymore starts to be outside their means to provide for. The number of children per families seems to at least correlate with the quality of life, education, hygiene, etc in the region. When you don't have high infant mortality rate or need to depend on as many people working grueling jobs in your family as possible, there's no incentive to have more kids, so people for the most part don't.

... seems to be a much better solution

 

[MegaWallflower]

So, it's clear that effecting the birth rate would be a bad idea. I can't think of an ethical/moral way of starting from the top, though. Death penalty for certain, really bad crimes? That'd take care of any overcrowding in jails, too, right? Just kidding. :d Seriously, though, I guess we'll just have to become more efficient in caring for more people, have only kids if you can support them... I don't know. :c

 

[Orion]

So, it's clear that effecting the birth rate would be a bad idea.

Certainly if it were to involve forcing surgery on individuals who would otherwise never consider it or consent to it.

I can't think of an ethical/moral way of starting from the top, though.

Change doesn't have to come from policy or laws or programs. You can still have awareness and educational programs designed to have people really think about the impact their children will have on the world, how many they want to have, the maximum quality of life they could possibly give to that number of children, etc.

Death penalty for certain, really bad crimes? That'd take care of any overcrowding in jails, too, right? Just kidding.

Nope. The only reason you see overcrowded prisons as a problem is because you're in the USA. Retarded drug laws see non-violent, non-distributing, non-repeating offenders thrown in jail. It doesn't help that for-profit prisons also have a vested interest in seeing as many people in jail as possible. Even if you expand the number of crimes for which people can be murdered, it would still only apply to a small number of people and the major problem would still remain. Aside from that, the status of prisons doesn't reflect on the whole of society in any meaningful way because criminals are essentially statistical anomalies in the big picture.

:d Seriously, though, I guess we'll just have to become more efficient in caring for more people, have only kids if you can support them... I don't know. :c

Exactly. Being a smart parent, having your kids be well-educated in matters like this, and other stuff - if adopted by a big enough part of society - would naturally propagate down the line and pick up more adherents.

If this is indeed a problem don't you think government officials and authorities might start implementing forced natural selection. I'm not saying we should adhere to this but that term always comes across my mind whenever a topic like this is being brought up

Enforcing eugenics goes down a very dangerous road. It doesn't guarantee that classes will be even more divided then they are now, but it sets a possible precedent. When you start gauging people's worth to society based on their genes and traits, you set up another trait that divides people, which is the last thing we need in modern first-world societies. We've got race, gender, faith, income, political views and more. We should avoid any possible thing that can add to that list, I believe.

 

[Muse]

Wouldn't it be easier and more practical to just spread awareness about having children and the responsibilities that come with it? I mean, it sounds like a really obvious solution, but it's better than forcing permanent birth-control measures on the population.