[cl004]

Be very careful about the direction that these type of thoughts can go.
The first question I have in where would you have these sterilisation rules? Not in Japan, as it suffering from a low birthrate and has a negative population growth. Not within Europe as many European countries are also suffering negative growth or are just above positive growth. In the US? I doubt it very much. Americans like their freedoms and this would be seen as aginst their rights, no matter how many times you say voluntary.
Second question: If you enforce sterlisation on criminals what is to stop you from saying the same for mentally handicapped? Someone who is barely capable of looking after themselves shouldn't be allowed to have children. Or people who have genetic defects such as downs syndrome. They might not suffer from it, but any offspring might. Is this right? Hitler went down this route.
Thirdly: What about limiting poeple to one or two children per family? We have seen how this turned out in China. Spoiled children who are now incapable of looking after themselves, female children babies abandoned because the Chinese still prefer male children.
Ideas like this can sound good, but governments would take control and impose more restrictions on the population and with modern technology only the genetically 'pure' might be the only ones allowed to breed. The Eyes of Heisenberg is just around the corner (Frank Herbert book for anyone wondering)

[Trikaduliana]

Second question: If you enforce sterlisation on criminals what is to stop you from saying the same for mentally handicapped? Someone who is barely capable of looking after themselves shouldn't be allowed to have children. It would make more sense to sterilise the mentally handicapped... Letting them have children would be irresponsible for their offspring.

Hitler went down this route. Hitler was also against smoking and drinking alcohol, he liked painting and German folk music. Does that mean that because these are all bad because they can be associated with Hitler ?

[Assauraarguck]

There is still plenty of room in north america. There are states that are so empty is scary. Farmlands for miles...it wouldn't be 2 bad to see some cities in there. And not to mention Canada and it's potential for human growth.

I think that is what Glenn and I were referring to -- that we need more room and space -- that things are just too crowded as it is.

Those empty spaces you are referring to in Canada and U.S. states are some of the last open spaces left in the developed world. The human population is so large that we are not in danger of going extinct, so why feel the need to fill in those empty spaces with things and people we already have more than enough of? Isn`t there value in open space? To me there is. Why is something "empty" scary?

I agree with you, though, there is still plenty of room in North America, and that is how many would like to keep it. There are three choices when it comes to "room/space" available:

1. Plenty of room
2. Just enough room
3. Not enough room
I opt for the first one. I think most do also when confronted with the reality and consequences of the other two.

[KneefeZes]

The first question I have in where would you have these sterilisation rules?

Anyplace where the result wouldn`t be zero people within 50 years. Obviously, I would not expect Indonesia to offer it to an outlying isolated island with a population of only 200 people -- if that island`s recourses are self supporting. Jakarta, however, would be a different story.

Not in Japan, as it suffering from a low birthrate and has a negative population growth. Japan is a fine target for the policies. Like I said before, the goal is to roll back population. That would require a negative birthrate for some time. I think the prewar population of Japan was about 65,000,000 people. Now it is approx 124,000,000. The prewar number seems like a reasonable target and the only way to get there is to keep a negative rate. Stopping at 65,000,000 however, is arbitrary. Even lower is fine -- perhaps to 50,000,000 or so.

Not within Europe as many European countries are also suffering negative growth or are just above positive growth. Europe, too, would be a good target. Negative growth rate is preferred to roll back the population. In fact, only with a negative growth rate can the population be reduced (barring war).

In the US? I doubt it very much. Americans like their freedoms and this would be seen as aginst their rights, no matter how many times you say voluntary. That is the point of bringing controversial issues like this up for debate and discussion -- to convince people to move into a new direction. Admittedly, it is hard. But over time a debate can cause a need for change to be accepted. As for freedoms, many Americans really fought against the freedom to drive without a seatbelt -- but eventually the facts of them saving lives allowed for politicians to legislate the use of them.

In reality, freedoms are bargained away in bits and pieces for the good of society as society evolves. Our world population has "evolved" to such an extent that now it is time to begin the debate on how we are going to bring it back to a level that allows for a large slice of recources for all of us.

Second question: If you enforce sterlisation on criminals I suggested that only sexual crimes/predators would be forced to be sterilized. Other criminals would not be forced to so but only given the choice to voluntarily opt for the procedure as a means of shaving some times off their sentences.

what is to stop you from saying the same for mentally handicapped? The ability to consent with the full faculties of reasoning. If a person is deemed to not have this ability, then they should not even be permitted to have the operation even if it appears to be that they are volunteering for it.

Thirdly: What about limiting poeple to one or two children per family? We have seen how this turned out in China. I have not suggested negative coercion (though perhaps some mix of it could be effective).

[Mjxhnapi]

Adding to the list of policies that could help roll back population:

7. All abortions in the first trimester are subsidized by the government to greatly reduce the costs or given free. Perhaps, all pregnancies occuring in kids under 18 years old should be free. Under 25, 75% off. Under 30, 50% off. Under 40, 25% off. Any pregancy above 40, free.

8. All birth control given free.

9. All birth control (non medicinal) made available in public schools in a manner so that they can be picked up anonymously by all students.

10. In areas where high drop-out rates occur in schools, birth control made available at community centers where teens may gather for sports or socializing. Perhaps more dispensing machines in other places where teens gather on a regular basis.


11. The Morning After drug given free upon request.
*all these suggestions are not for developed western nations only. Poorer nations would have to have funding support through the UN or other aid programs directly from countries in order to pay for these.

Some may say that it would be too costly. In the short run, yes. But, if priorities are set for the world environment, the 100 billion dollars spent on warring in Iraque or a few fighter airplanes per countries produced by those countries, could go far in paying for these.

In addition, when motherless teenage children are giving birth to children and they have not graduated from highschool with a decent education, this kind of breeding has an indirect cost to society. Dependency on the government and crime often mark the socio economic class of people who reproduce in such way. They are a drain on the tax recourses of a state. To pay for an abortion by the government, which may cost tax payers $500~$1,000 is much cheaper than supporting this mother and child on welfare for years to come or paying for incarceration for desperate acts of survival that they may commit as they try to make ends meet.

In the long run, to not prevent babies that are born out of no thought for the future, is much cheaper when paid for by society by preventing them, rather than supporting them later.

[Knongargoapex]

I agree almost unconditionally with points 7 to 11. The only thing needed for that is money ! People should be responsible and mature enough to understand the consequences of their acts, and realise as you said that buying contraceptive or even aborting is much cheaper in the long run than supporting an unwanted child later. So education is almost as important (if not more) than government funding of these things. That is all the truer in the US where a big chunk of the population is still against abortion (and interestingly the same people are typically pro-war ).

[Yarikoff]

I suppose that our view on humanity is different. I don't see our population as being a virus. True there are some overpopulated areas like China that need some kind of managment in that area. However, in our western hemisphere the population rates are decreasing at a disturbing rate, especially in Europe. Old populations in the world's most developed countries, the engines of our society, is not a good thing. We need new innovations, new efforts and new ideas on how to better life here on earth and how to do so whilst preserving our environment that we live in. More people doesn't have to mean more polluters, it can mean more nature concious people, in fact it's the newer generations that are more concerned with the well being of our planet rather than the older generations. I guess I can see why you wouldn't like so much to have more people in the US since there the concept of personal space and all is much more magnified than over here. The EU territory is probaply alltogether smaller than that of the US, however there are 450 million people living here and around 300 in the US. WE don't see no lack of forests or nature or wildlife preserves here in Europe. Even more so European cities are probaply greener than the majority of the US megapolis like city, ie LA, NY etc. I suppose it's rather a different perception on personal space that's motivating your view.

[dfuzioniag]

Hi Duo,

I agree with most everything you said above. However, I`m gonna go and eat some oatmeal and nuts now for breakfast. I will answer in perhaps an hour.

Enjoying the discussions.

[rhybrisee]

well SVF biologically speaking the only way that a person and living creature is "fit" according to darwin's principles is if it is able to procreate and pass the genes down into the next generation. That is our sole "biological" mission in life...and it's why we were born. Having a big variety of genes passed through is important to the process of evolution...as we saw new epidemics can strike anywhere at anytime so having a large pool of genes available out there means more chances of a gene combination strong enough to resist a certain epidemic or able to adapt better to a changing environment or what have you.

That is all fine, Duo. I won`t debate that a large gene pool allows for better survival of a species. But, I will say that carrying a population of any size in any species that overtaxes the recourses of an environment is not healthy for the environment and in the end could threaten the species that has done the damage. I am one, and I am sure there are many, who would not like to have to live during a population "crash." In addition, seeing the violent nature of our species and her civilizations, a "crash" or a "fight for precious recourses" could be brought about by the pressures of population.

As a species, we also have evolved to form concepts compassion and altruism. To suggest that the human species should just have continuous positive growth is to condemn many to a viscious cycle of abject poverty -- for within their region the recourse slice per person is just too small to fullfil everyone.

It's true that in some countries...ie china and india overpopulation is a problem but there are those nations where an aging population is a problem. An aging population in some countries is only a problem to the economies in the short run. In the long run as the older generation dies out, the young base would not be overburdened with an inverted tax pyramid of support.

As for the environment, a smaller population is best for it will have a smaller impact.

[T5qYkHWQ]

I agree almost unconditionally with points 7 to 11. The only thing needed for that is money ! People should be responsible and mature enough to understand the consequences of their acts, and realise as you said that buying contraceptive or even aborting is much cheaper in the long run than supporting an unwanted child later. So education is almost as important (if not more) than government funding of these things. That is all the truer in the US where a big chunk of the population is still against abortion (and interestingly the same people are typically pro-war ).

Actually, the majority of Americans are pro choice (myself included). As well as in favor of sex education, it's more true to say that people are against the act of abortion. But most people feel that a woman has the right to choose weather she wants an abortion or not and believe the government shouldn't intrude on a woman's privacy and believe that abortion should be legal in most cases. It just seems that way to you. In fact, there are a number of religious organizations who support the woman's right to choose an abortion. Since I had the oppertunity to volunteer at Planned Parenthood Federation of America just in the past few days we are in a fight to keep Roe v. Wade from being overturned. They are one of the few organizations in this country who believe the population is the reason why abortion should be allowed. We are also involved in promoting sex education. Just thought I'd let you know that.

[beethyday]

Actually, the majority of Americans are pro choice (myself included). As well as in favor of sex education, it's more true to say that people are against the act of abortion. But most people feel that a woman has the right to choose weather she wants an abortion or not and believe the government shouldn't intrude on a woman's privacy and believe that abortion should be legal in most cases. That chunk of the population you're talking about is a minority. It just seems that way to you because you. There is, in fact a number of religious organizations that support the right for a woman to choose abortion. Since I had the oppertunity to volunteer at Planned Parenthood Federation of America just in the past few days we are in a fight to keep Roe v. Wade from being overturned. PPFA is one of the few organizations in this country who believe the population is the reason why abortion should be allowed. We are also involved in promoting sex education.

Piggy backing on what I said eariler, the people you mentioned Maciamo about being pro war, they are usually pro death penalty as well. Extreme pro life groups care so much about a fetus, but once it develops into a baby and it's born, they don't care about the child after that.

[Ggskbpbz]

Question to SVF: do you think that the declining population rates in Europe and Japan are too slow?

[PRengine]

Question to SVF: do you think that the declining population rates in Europe and Japan are too slow?

Hi Glenn,

hmmm...I am not so sure. I do know that I would like to see a negative growth in population sustained. A while back I saw a show that said something like if Japan`s rate continues there would be no Japanese within a hundred years.

It was just a sensational scare story to make people wax sadly about the loss of their culture.

Obviously with a cut in population, there will be some economic pain as demographics and tax bases adjust to support the economy and social financial structures.

If the population of Japan and Europe could be cut by two thirds within a period of 50 years, I would be quite satisfied.

How about you? What are your thoughts on it?

[freeprescriptionplanrrx]

I remember seeing statistics that linked women's literacy rates and education to steady or negative population growth. It even had a higher connection than economic prosperity. The reasoning was that if they can read and are educated, they will be able to get better jobs as well as learn about contraceptive options, and thereby reduce the amount of time that they have to raise kids and increase their options for not having them.

I think reduction in population is a good thing. We could all use more room. Maybe that way we won't be so stressed all the time.

So, my opinion is to improve education around the globe, especially among women. Of course, there are probably some outdated ideas about male superiority in some cultures, but educating women would probably do well to curb that as well. I think that current trends in population reduction are fine, because I think it's not happening too quickly. I just hope there aren't too many problems with a diminishing workforce that can't keep up with supporting retirees. I haven't thought too much beyond that.