Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[anewaname]

On the topic of "over-population", and considering the vectors of:
- birth limitations versus murder/genocide
- good versus evil
- government control versus individual rights

Is a dilemma like over-population able to be solved by political groups? Can it be solved by individuals? Can any solution to this dilemma be fair to all involved? If an AI was allowed to create its own systems of measurements, without political interference, would it be more destructive to humans than humans have previously been to humans (destruction expressed as a ratio to current population)?

[Scoops Novel]

Make people wealthy and the birth rate goes down. Can be done if we can be bothered, and people will bother us to.

[None]

Oh, don't worry about that, climate change will render large swaths of land both uninhabitable and non-arable. The poor will die out.

[martinuzz]

I don't have any children, mostly because I think the world is overcrowded enough as it is, and I know quite a few people from my and younger generations who choose to do the same.

However, one dilemma there always bothers me: If all people who have the wisdom and compassion decide to have no (or at the very most two) children, they will be outbred by those that lack that insight or simply don't care. We'll end up with a world dominated by the dumb and the uncaring. Not to mention the various interpretations of religion that demand relentless reproduction.

But yeah. Birth control is the only non-violent means of population reduction.
When I am in a pessimistic mood, I often think that is the only way we are going to keep our planet habitable (and probably the fastest way of reducing CO2 emissions).

Let's all just do it! 3 generations. Only 1 child per couple. we can get back to a feasible 1-2 billion total population in about 50 years if we really try.

[delphonso]

"Over-population" isn't really a single issue and tends not to be defined.

What exactly is the issue of over-population that needs to be solved? Too many to feed? Too much demand for goods? Too many people in limited urban space?

However, one dilemma there always bothers me: If all people who have the wisdom and compassion decide to have no (or at the very most two) children, they will be outbred by those that lack that insight or simply don't care. We'll end up with a world dominated by the dumb and the uncaring.

This assumes those traits are inherited and not cultural. The huge difference in empathy between Americans of the last 3 generations suggests this isn't the case.

[voliol]

Make people wealthy and the birth rate goes down. Can be done if we can be bothered, and people will bother us to.

If you are talking about individuals that is only true to a certain extent, when societies are moving (or have recently moved from) states of high infant mortality. In countries where child mortality has not been a major concern for a long time, wealthy people have more children because they can afford them.

Or maybe when you say ”make people wealthy” you mean societies as a whole, i.e. industrialization? Then that is true, because industrialization causes that shift from high natality+mortality to low natality+mortality. This is known as the demographic transition(though if this was your point you might have known this already). Though populations may stabilize on the other side of it (or not, see Japan, Italy), so it is not a guarantee for lower populations, rather the new stable population will inevitably be higher than the one before. In fact, this is the main reason why concerns about ”over-population” on a global scales are icky - because the parts of the world with rapidly increasing populations (mainly Africa) are those that are going through the demographic transition due to their economic growth. This is not a new development, it happened in Europe and the US as early as the first half of the 1900s, and now the global late comers are catching up. To then complain about ”over-population” as a person in one of those countries which has already seen its explosion in population growth (goes for me, and I assume most members of this forum, due to literacy numbers and English), just isn’t fair, and that’s foregoing asking questions about ethnicity of transition/post-transition states and why these states are late to the scene.

To make it clear, I do not think we need to worry about over-population. I think we need to worry about the climate and consumption, and that is of course connected to the amount of humans consuming, but the populations themselves seem to stabilize at some point. Worrying too much about it now could be racism, or at least ”let people of some other state deal with the climate crisis”-ism.

[Amaranth]

Emotions are the stinker.

[MrRoboto75]

With a simple noose, you too could contribute to solving global overpopulation

[delphonso]

To make it clear, I do not think we need to worry about over-population. I think we need to worry about the climate and consumption, and that is of course connected to the amount of humans consuming, but the populations themselves seem to stabilize at some point. Worrying too much about it now could be racism, or at least ”let people of some other state deal with the climate crisis”-ism.

I edited my post down to the point I cut out this same point of view. I don't think it's an issue, and most of the issues are already solvable with the technology we currently have. The stinker is just implementing tech.

Nuclear reactors and biotech foods all the way. Begin planting trees constantly, and bury carbon somewhere we don't have to deal with it for a while. Use graphene in cement.

[Metruption]

There are enough resources to meet everyone's needs. The issue isn't overpopulation, the issue is resource distribution.

[wierd]

Covid has it covered.

Check out "seminiferous tubule damage from covid 19" in google scholar.

i would expect a sharp downturn in birthrate in the coming decade.

No need for ethical wingeing.

[MaxTheFox]

Climate change is a more immediate concern than overpopulation, and in any case, anyone suggesting murder rather than birth control is irredeemably evil in my eyes. I believe the world population should remain roughly at the current level as an ideal until we have the technology to support more.

[Xantalos]

Mayhaps enable the ability to send out migrations when your fort gets to a certain size? That way the excess population isn't hanging around reducing framerate and you can maybe eventually hear back about their success or failure.

Edit: whoops, evidently this isn't the DF board. Kindly read the word 'fort' as 'planet' and 'framerate' as ... nah framerate's still good.

[anewaname]

About having enough resources and the means to distribute them, maybe we do now, but we might not in the future (climate change and continued population growth).

On the "birth limitations versus murder/genocide" vector, "murder" is intended to cover all the soft versions, like stealing other's food/fuel, worked-until-dead labor camps, etc.

And, what about this question, in the context of the thread so far?

...
If an AI was allowed to create its own systems of measurements, without political interference, would it be more destructive to humans than humans have previously been to humans (destruction expressed as a ratio to current population)?

[MrRoboto75]

It always begs the question of who's "worthy" of being part of the population. (and why you specifically happen to be one of the worthy ones)

And tbh if it was up to an AI, why shouldn't the AI set the needed number of humans to zero?