The Population Bomb

[Red Axis]

I believe that the Population Bomb is ticking. There are only a few things we can do. It is much to late to do what was best years ago, so we need to do it now. The overflow of people are going to destroy our environment and our economy and leave us all starving and hungry. We do not need more people in this Earth and in this country, we need less. Unless we want a massive famine, pandemic, etc. in the United States, we need to start by doing a few things. Other smart countries will do the same.

1. We need to greatly revitalize our agricultural base, and through producerist means, we need to greatly increase our food stores.

2. We need to begin research on cures for diseases that have barely even cropped up, because they will be the pandemics of the future.

3. I know this is unpopular here, but it is not out of xenophobia of any kind, so don't label me a right-winger, but we need to have a temporary reduction on immigration. The less immigration here the better.

4. We will grealty expand access to birth control and greatly expand birth control options. No dumb right-wingers can stand in the way of this. We need to simply promote people having fewer kids, and give rewards to those that do have fewer kids.

5. We need to quickly develop some insanely efficient source of energy, because people will be sucking up the resources.

6. Okay, here comes the communist portion. We need to promote decentralization of wealth and land reform, so people who need it have all the wealth for sustinence and a place to stay. Only with communism is it the way.

7. We need to create an international organization of countries that will do the same thing, and after a few hundred years, the problem will be solved.

I know I may have some controversial things in here, but this is an issue dear to my heart because I believe it will be affecting us all soon.

[Mujer Libre]

3. I know this is unpopular here, but it is not out of xenophobia of any kind, so don't label me a right-winger, but we need to have a temporary reduction on immigration. The less immigration here the better.

That makes no sense. Population is the whole planet's problem, so insulating your little part of the world is not going to help. Well, it may help you (at least in the short term) but it fucks a lot of other people up- real compassionate...In fact, in most developed countries levels of population growth are below replacement level so they can easily afford to take in immigrants.


6. Okay, here comes the communist portion. We need to promote decentralization of wealth and land reform, so people who need it have all the wealth for sustinence and a place to stay. Only with communism is it the way.

7. We need to create an international organization of countries that will do the same thing, and after a few hundred years, the problem will be solved.

I'm not so sure nation-states mix so well with communism.... Just a hunch on my part...

Are you a statist by any chance?

[Red Axis]

I am a statist. I believe that anarchy and libertarianism are a bunch of hooey and lead up to destructionism. I know my plan isn't compassionate and Karl Marx actually didn't believe there would be a population bomb, but it is the only way that works. I am sure if Marx were here today he would see the light. I am saying that socialism does not happen in a day, and we need to let this current crisis pass us first.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Such Malthusian doomsaying has been proven wrong in the past, and I doubt that record will change.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Red Axis, if you would actually take a look at population charts you would see that modern capitalist countries, or what we around here like to call "old" or "advanced" capitalist countries (such as France, England, US, Germany, etc), populations start to level out. In Italy they are even starting on a decline in comparison of old to young! The population problems are within third world countries where economic reasons require larger families. I think it is a wise hypothesis that these populations will also level off once those nations develope.

[Wiesty]

the problem is, with our intelligence, and tools today, we have avoided many problems, which occur naturally in earths flow, such as disease, famine, natural diasters. And while these do kill many, they do not kill as much as they would naturally, without our tools today.

Sad state of affairs, when we have to talk about ways to lower population though...

[Eoin Dubh]

Originally posted by Mujer [email protected] 7 2006, 02:03 AM


That makes no sense. Population is the whole planet's problem, so insulating your little part of the world is not going to help.

Western nations consume on a level that those in the undeveloped world do not.
When economists speak of standard of living - they really mean standard of consumption.
More humans = more consumption = more garbage and pollution.
So, in that sense, it would help.

[Black Dagger]

I am a statist. I believe that anarchy and libertarianism are a bunch of hooey and lead up to destructionism.

Good to see you're sticking with scientific argument. I suppose you're aware that Marx advocated a stateless, classless society?



I am sure if Marx were here today he would see the light.

And accept 'jesus' as his communist saviour?

[Red Axis]

I am not a Marxist, I have my own communist ideology. I am actually closer to Stalinism, even though I am not a fan of Stalin himself.

[redstar2000]

Long-range population predictions are among the most intractable scientific problems.

We can say that if the present rate of growth continues for X number of years, then the population will reach Y.

But population growth is sensitive to an enormous number of environmental influences...and we don't know what those future influences are going to be.

Some demographers think that the world's population is approaching its "peak"...and will begin to start gradually declining by the end of this century. Perhaps stabilizing at around two billion by 2200.

But no one really knows.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Wiesty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 11:46 AM
Long-range population predictions are among the most intractable scientific problems.

We can say that if the present rate of growth continues for X number of years, then the population will reach Y.

But population growth is sensitive to an enormous number of environmental influences...and we don't know what those future influences are going to be.

Some demographers think that the world's population is approaching its "peak"...and will begin to start gradually declining by the end of this century. Perhaps stabilizing at around two billion by 2200.

But no one really knows.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
So your saying tthat if it stabalizes at 2 Billion, we are like 7 Billion people over what we should have?


if so.............fuck

[piet11111]

first of all the entire over-population hype assumes that everyone is being fed right now :lol:
europe is burning grain on a daily basis so that the price wont fall same goes for milk and other foodstuffs.
heck the netherlands are actively working to eliminate agriculture all together by making life impossible for farmers.
another assumption of the population bomb is that we are using our land 100% effectively while we havent even looked into developing other country's to make them produce more food.

the population bomb wont go off for i bet 250 years.
and then we can always recommend cannibalism :lol: YUM YUM

[Red Axis]

Regardless of when the population bomb goes off, we need to work to stop it now!

[bezdomni]

Three words:

Pandemic Bird Flu.

;)

[ComradeOm]

I've yet to see a demographic scare that came to anything.

[apathy maybe]

I know! Lets kill off every non-anarchist! That would solve a number of problems right then!


Seriously, yes there are too many people around. That is not to say that we couldn't feed everybody, but we can't have everybody live at a standard of living that most people in the over-developed countries have. And that would be nice.

I don't have a good solution to this problem however.

As to immigration, the Australian government a while ago wanted families to have three kids, one for mum, one for dad and one for country. I think that we should import people instead. More 'advanced' countries have less children, means less problem.

[Seong]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 06:27 AM
Three words:

Pandemic Bird Flu.

;)
I think you may be joking...but there is some logic in there somewhere. Nature, funnily enough usually works this out without us super intelligent humans even realising that we're about to suffer an epidemic or tsunami or any other 'natural' distaster that you can think of. That usually levels things out nicely :blink:

I don't find the matter funny by any means, but I think you might be getting a little ahead of yourself Red Axis. I agree that the Earth's resources are under a huge strain right now, but the population bomb isn't as serious a threat as you make out.

[Red Axis]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 8 2006, 10:01 AM
I know! Lets kill off every non-anarchist! That would solve a number of problems right then!


Seriously, yes there are too many people around. That is not to say that we couldn't feed everybody, but we can't have everybody live at a standard of living that most people in the over-developed countries have. And that would be nice.

I don't have a good solution to this problem however.

As to immigration, the Australian government a while ago wanted families to have three kids, one for mum, one for dad and one for country. I think that we should import people instead. More 'advanced' countries have less children, means less problem.
Except for those darn Catholics. But I see your point, which is why we need to greatly improve conditions in other countries as well.

[Janus]

There have been several books about this subject.

From the population charts, we can see that pop. growth in developed nations is leveling out as others have said. It is mainly a problem in the developing nations. However, the people there don't have anywhere near as large of an ecological footprint as those in the first world. Therefore, I think that the problem has more to do with distribution of goods rather than the population itself.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by BBC
Putin warns on population decline

Russia's declining population is the biggest problem the state faces today, President Vladimir Putin has said.

In an annual address to the nation, Mr Putin said falling birth rates and the rise in mortality made Russia's demographic situation "critical".

He outlined a national programme to encourage women to have more children, pledging more state help.

Mr Putin said Russia's population had witnessed an annual decline of 700,000 people, because of low birth rates, high mortality and immigration.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/4757261.stm

No future? No kids!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Phalanx]

This population trend is widespread throughout Eastern Europe. Even places like Romania, where Ceauşescu tried to have a 'baby boom', the population is now declining. Western countries, such as the US, would see their population falling if it weren't for immigration. I think the population is supposed to stop growing at around 2050 with a population of 9.3 billion. But, as said before, population growth (or decline) is extremely hard to predict.

[Zero]

The reason that you see a need for a 'stem of immigration' is because you are a statist! You may think that Anarchism and Libertarianism is "hooey" but its simple logic. What will happen if one country is "better" then another? Immigration. Unless we equalise the world, there is NO WAY to escape from the problem that you and your states create.

[Ander]

Even if the "population bomb" doesn't go off soon, I still think that people in general should cut down on the amount of children they are having.

[Janus]

I still think that people in general should cut down on the amount of children they are having.
They should consider it, particularly those in the developed nations. One must take into account that children in the developing nations will have much less of an ecological impact than their counterparts in the first world.