Realistically, how would you solve the overpopulation issue? Mass killings, forced migration?
Personally the idea of chemicals in the tap water reducing sperm count appeals to me
Very interesting actually
Although I would say his cardboard box analogy doesn't seem to take into account rising ages, but maybe it's a negligible factor
I agree that overconsumption is definitely the big concern
Nugger the rate won't just plateau like that unless something drastic happens
We've been riding the exponential train for a while now
incentivised sterilization. give people who can't afford having children or are not qualified to be parents an adequate amount of money. education of the masses works far to slowly to illicit a much needed change in third-world countries. and as long as the god-damned pope and the religious authorities of the sandniggers(hint: there are none) won't endorse oral contraceptives, condoms, womens rights (and no i don't mean feminazis) and population control, you cannot even begin to think about a positive change. we seem to be pretty fucked, desu.
Let n=number of females being exposed to situations in which they can conceive
Multiply by 1 x 10^-3
= N x 10^-3
After a long session of maths, I can conclude the numbers of babies had before and after will decrease by a factor of 10^3
No I meant the ed result, how dangerous would it be? I mean let's say there are 7 billion people and 4 out that are female's. If every female has 10^3 reduced factor of births, how long before human race goes extinct (assuming it will)
The only countries that need to worry about that are China and India, mostly India since they don't have a 1 family policy. Most of the developed world is seeing a decrease in overall population growth.
I see your point. But I think there will be a point where hand-outs will not exist anymore. But I don't see that happening to China, they have massive projects happening across their country. They'll take people with no jobs, train them, and work them. Not necessarily the best benefits for the worker, but they won't complain if they have food and income, keeps them more passive. Not too sure how India deals with it's population problems, haven't done any research on that country.
Not that dangerous,extinction is very far off
Around 130 million babies are born each year
130 x 10^6 x 10^-3
= 130 x 10^3, so 130K each year
This is not taking into account other factors that would increase it, like in vitro gestation
Apart from places with people relying on their children (some farmers, the hopeless poor) this would have an incredible beneficial effect and solve/minimise lots of the problems we have, like hunger, high energy usage (and resulting climate change), clean water, disease, etc.
It would be best for developed countries, but would probably slow the growth of developing countries
Those developing fags waste all their time having heterosexual sex anyway,and have the babies to show for it, so if it did negatively affect them, it would far in the future
To solve population control, one must run away from said population who claims it, have many babies with plenty of fertile virgins, and then live life by means of farming, weaving, irrigation, and temple building.
Birthrates seem to decrease as standards of living increase, and there's a strong correlation between infant mortality and the crude birth rate. At worst food subsidies to Africa made an unstable situation, but other than that we'll be fine if we keep the course.
Unless you're one of those "keep the population below 500 million" types, in which case you'd need an enormous pandemic or holodomor.
Preventing babies from being born means humanity will get older and older. No renewal of population = no one to take care of the elderly (and your aging self). You'd better cull the old ones first, right?
OVER POPULATION IS A MEME
every human on earth could live in an area the size of Texas and this mega city would have a population density below that of New York City
Earth is not overpopulated
overpopulation isnt about not having space to live
its about not having resources and damage to our environment you fuckstick
Go travel outside of your city. There is free space everywhere ready for building new cities, homes and jobs. There is no overpopulation.
Same for china. Once you leave hongkong, there is empty space everywhere with sparse villages from time to time.
What resources we don't have enough?
I'd make sure that every time traveler knew exactly where to go to find causally separated land, because you're sure as fuck not from this time period if you're asking a question like that. That's a problem that's well off into the future, say, 10,000 years minimum.
Civilization isn't built in empty space. Las Vegas was built in empty space and it became the most toxic shithole in the world. When we try to build civilization far from a water supply, we create toxic supply chains; parasites on the global economy. It might seem like the world is vast and we can never exhaust its resources, but humans have very specific needs, and we die or suffer if we don't meet them.
Stop all medical aid, food donation, and life "sponsorship" (for less than 1 dollar a day you can sponsor a child type shit) in the middle East and Africa. Close borders in Europe.
Let natural selection and competition deal with the over population problem.
ya but what if theyre really attractive people? like >9/10. why not just only sterilize the ugly women and the stupid men. lets face it. its the ugly women and stupid men that are the real problem.
Enforce a 1 or 2 child limit at the most. Only people who obtain at least a Masters degree can be a citizen Citizen. Citizens can have children and can vote. Become a citizen by enlisting in education. Children born to uneducated parents will be confiscated and repurposed.
Also euthanize all people with significant birth defects, especially those who could not contribute to society. Remember, the Georgia Guidestones are right.
We need legislation to limit the amount of offspring people can have, on a global basis. Some ideas for who would be given the 'rights' to breed:
Then of course we would need a scientifically sound stable population level to aim for.
Not that guy, but yeah, it does look that way.
>what is correlation
>what is causation
Correlation between gender inequality: birth rate = 0.79 (positive correlation)
Correlation between gender inequality: % female workforce participation = 0.07 (no correlation)
Correlation between gender inequality: % females with atleast secondary school education = -0.786077718 (negative correlation)
Sorry pal. But I think you should just fuck off back to /pol/ and stay there.
There is no overpopulation in civilised countries. China, India, Africa, Middle East.
We shouldn't sterilize the only peoples able to keep their population in check while mass importing those who don't..
And how say, will the logistics of this mega-city be managed? Do you realize how big Texas is?
You''ll have to distribute food, water, education, have hospitals, factories, roads, and services built in this Texas-sized area, it would be the greatest wonder of engineering ever built if it were to be made.
If it was up to me I would depopulate all large urban areas with nuclear weapons and then attempt to subjugate the remaining rural people.
You would need to setup a safe zone, say up by some doomsday seed bank, and let radiation cool down for a few years or whatever. The survivors would be so fucked up they might beg for a dictatorship.
Install universal income. Have people live empty lives deriving all their pleasure from sex, food, drugs, and various forms of advanced entertainment, including virtual reality. Heavily tax having children so that those solely dependent on universal income couldn't afford them, under the pretext that they'd be a drain to the economy due to being eventually granted universal income. But that wouldn't be a huge problem anyway since most of the lower classes, now addicted to fast and easy dopamine, wouldn't want having anything to do with children anyway.
Only the upper classes, people living off of dividends from accumulated wealth, or the higher end of the middle class - people who have skills and knowledge that is still in need and hasn't been automated - will be able to have offspring.
Give it a couple of generations and all the plebs will have withered away leaving only the creme de la creme behind, relieving both the civilization, and the planet itself from the trouble of sustaining them.
>mfw i just predicted the future
>mfw no face
If I became a living God tomorrow, I would just massage the global human population downwards over the next several decades, by regularly and randomly teleporting most fertile women's eggs out of their bodies on a constant basis. I would build into this model, breeding cycles announced to Earth well ahead of time, so people could have their shot, but I would put up with no bullshit - if the species tries (instinctively) to up its rates of change on some interval, I just turn things off for a little bit - a year or three, whatever it takes. I've thought about this, and we do need future generations to provide hope, care for the elderly and so on, so you have to be gradual to do this without everyone despairing. You're already frustrating the number two imperative of human life, so if you slip and push them too much further, they'll start killing themselves which deveats the purpose of what I want.
Of course, the above isn't realistic, and therefore doesn't answer OP's question. Given brown stupidity and white guilt, there doesn't appear to be a realistic, proactive solution (remember that the second imperative is to reproduce, this overrides all else apart from self-preservation. Humans can't be rational about this.). So the real answer to OP's question is to wait and let nature take its course, as it will, one way or the other.
I really like Zika virus as an answer to OP's question. Just the other day I was edgily hoping that it would cause anti-natalism to become a serious political and philosophical position, as opposed to irrelevant edge. Well imagine my pleasure when I turned on the radio today and heard that much of latin America is advising its women to hold off on babies for a few years. We really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really need to get this virus going in Africa and the Middle East.
Less edgily, my preferred (and unrealistic) solution has been modeled above. What is its purpose? To get all those living able to enjoy first-world tier quality of life, which requires exponentially more resources per person. Better to have a world of 500 million where everyone has air conditioning, education and basic real reason to live than arbitrarily many, following our stupid instincts, so we Poo in Ocean.
It is not the place of anyone to tell a couple not to have children or limit the amount of children said couple may have. Economic factors and societal factors may more or less indirectly influence a family's choice to have children (s). It is the job of scientists and engineers to facilitate a solution to a potential problem by development new technologies to solve this potential problems. It is in the realm of science and technology to allow the planet and society to accommodate for a rising population
>average japanese age = 50-60 years old
>average european age = 45-55 years old
>average latino age = 35-45 years old
>average shithole age = 20-30 years old
Oh wow, It's not like 2/3 of humans now are fucking at boomers age.
>but muh overpopulation maymay
>Have holodomor kill off unwanted kulaks
>collectivized farms can feed any surplus population now
>To get all those living able to enjoy first-world tier quality of life,
For a large number of reasons.
The biggest is that they have no way of getting capital.
Even if they had capital, that doesn't mean that you can get some of the first world services.
And on the top of that, those who have capital think living standard in the west is higher, when the reality is that they have mansions and servants in Shitholia, while they also afford enough to get the same healthcare most first worlders would have access to.
Step 1: Shoot boats
Step 2: Physically close of the borders, properly
Step 3: Usid acid to clean the mountain of corpses if it goes that bad
Step 4: Deal with corruption
Is English your first language? I made it very clear in my (unrealistic) hypothetical that I would be a living god. I haven't completely ruled out redistribution as a tactic, though it does smack of communism which I don't like (and would be counter productive under normal circumstances since the smart and able would just accumulate their wealth again), but per the hypothetical, my living-god status would render these to be abnormal circumstances.
Also I'll just toss out microcredit as a more realistic example of moving money around in the third world.
We have a problem of overpopulation with subhumans like niggers and sandniggers. There are also respetable races thar are have overpoulation too, like chinks. We have a real problem of depopulation with white people.
You face when China just canceled their one child policy.