Which of the following methods of population control would you support assuming that they could be implemented ?
progressive taxation of families by the number of children
18%
[ 11 ]
forced contraception beyond a certain number of children
0%
[ 0 ]
progressive reduction of rights by the number of children (voting rights, medicare, pension, other retirement benefits)
1%
[ 1 ]
forced sterilization after a certain number of children
16%
[ 10 ]
all of the above
23%
[ 14 ]
none of the above
30%
[ 18 ]
some but not all of the above
10%
[ 6 ]
Total Votes : 60
Author
Message
Egomancer Tar Sands
Joined: Apr 07, 2007 Posts: 30
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 6:10 am Post subject: Re: population control options
btu2012 wrote:
I have to agree with this. I bet Egomancer has no direct experience of the military or of war, that's why it's so easy for him to say such things.
Egomancer, nowadays they kill people with missiles and with bombs/rockets from airplanes, helicopters and tanks. Or from 40 miles away with projectiles from ship cannons. What does that have to do with fitness ?
No level of fitness will enable you to survive carpet bombing. Trust me, it's just blind luck.
Btu
The best fit society, not the best persons. I prefer to live in a world where the selection is based on war not on pills or some other insane control population scheme.
Look at the Russians into ww2. While they started as society with huge problems they finished it as a better one. I won't get into a lengthy explanation about how the social organization influence the course of a war and so on. Think at the war like a cleansing process of all the bad things that accumulate during peace. True, a lot of good things are lost, but the bad ones are eliminated for a long period of time.
Anyway, regardless of what we write on this forum, war was, is and will be the best way to reduce population fast.
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 7:54 am Post subject: Re: population control options
btu2012 wrote:
because the third world will not just sit down and be content to die off so that we can continue our lifestyle.
You don't need nuclear weapons to deal with the third world. Biological weapons are cheap, effective, and don't damage the real estate.
Smallpox comes to mind, as does influenza. Vaccinate those to be kept alive, spread the disease, and watch the fun begin. Keep a few nuclear weapons for high-value targets - a 5000 ft. airburst is a beautiful thing. The beauty of this is that they cannot shoot back.
That's right - just because a nation has a primitive nuclear weapon, it does not necessarily have an effective delivery system.
Once the foregoing is implemented, clean-up becomes relatively easy. Think of lots of long-range predator drones with IR capability, searching for biological heat sources.
Joined: Sep 24, 2007 Posts: 2584 Location: third from the sun
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 8:45 am Post subject: Re: population control options
Egomancer wrote:
The best fit society, not the best persons.
Egomancer,
Hope you won't take this too badly but I really think that you don't know what you are talking about. Ask any Veteran, they will all tell you the same: modern War is Hell, and fitness has nothing to do with it. It's sheer, blind luck (plus technology).
By the way, the Russians could nuke the US at any time (true the US would nuke them back). Who would be the best fit society after such a mutually-suicidal exchange ?
You can't apply this sort of reasoning to modern war, any sufficiently large and sufficiently rich society can now commit genocide at the push of a few buttons. That tells us nothing about fitness.
Also consider this. The US never fought a really powerful adversary since WWII. You can't extrapolate from Panama to a final, genocidal war of survival over resources. It won't be a videogame this time, because the likely adversaries have quite a few toys of their own. Take a look at the Russian and Chinese arsenals (say at globalsecurity.org) and do the math. They can give anyone a run for their money.
Btu _________________ only the paranoid survive
Last edited by btu2012 on Sun Sep 30, 2007 9:10 am; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Sep 24, 2007 Posts: 2584 Location: third from the sun
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 8:58 am Post subject: Re: population control options
Jack wrote:
You don't need nuclear weapons to deal with the third world. Biological weapons are cheap, effective, and don't damage the real estate.
Smallpox comes to mind, as does influenza. Vaccinate those to be kept alive, spread the disease, and watch the fun begin. Keep a few nuclear weapons for high-value targets - a 5000 ft. airburst is a beautiful thing. The beauty of this is that they cannot shoot back.
Jack, you are assuming that you will only have to deal with the Third World. Likely you will have to deal with shifting alliances between large developing countries, Russia and/or China, and smaller poor countries. This won't be a walk in the park.
Also consider that there is enough weaponry (including biological and chemical) and delivery vector technology in the developing world which could be shared very fast among the players of such alliances if they face an existential threat. Think China and Russia sharing part of their military technology with India, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia and smaller players. You would be fighting such a block and not isolated 3rd world countries.
The scenario you are proposing could only work if you could perform say a stealthy biological first strike, with complete deniability as to the origin of the pathogen.
Did I mention that I find genocide and ethnicide to be a tad morally problematic ? Well, I didn't think you would care :)
Joined: Sep 24, 2007 Posts: 2584 Location: third from the sun
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 9:09 am Post subject: Re: population control options
Egomancer wrote:
I prefer to live in a world where the selection is based on war not on pills or some other insane control population scheme.
You know Egomancer, you have to be careful what you wish for because the way things are going you might just get your wish. You better bite your tongue when you write such things.
About the Soviet Union in WW2, with all due respect, I think that again you have no idea what you are talking about. Ask the Russians if they think that that carnage increased their society's "fitness".
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 9:54 am Post subject: Re: population control options
I say do nothing.Nature will dispense it's on population control in time.
I see no problem what so ever with a couple having 10 kids on their 40 acre farm. They have enough land to grow their own food to support those 10 kids. If I have enough land to support me and mine, what difference does it make to me that someone else doesn't? I'm not in overshoot. They are!
It seems to me implementing forced population controls just allows people to live in a unsustainable habitat and in overshoot. Take the 10 kids on the 40 acre farm. They are sustainable, but if we limit the number of children that couple can have to only two then all that excess food that would naturaly go to them is freed up to get shipped to somewhere where someone isn't able to grow the food that they need to survive and allow them to have their two kids.
I say have as many kids as you can sustain yourself. If you can't sustain any then don't have any. If you have more than what you can support, oh well you will have to pay the piper. Don't make someone else pay to get you out of the fix you put yourself in and don't cry that it's not fair bullsh#t . Life isn't fair _________________ There will come a day when we would have wished to do a little evil for a greater good.
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 11:50 am Post subject: Re: population control options
btu2012 wrote:
Jack, you are assuming that you will only have to deal with the Third World. Likely you will have to deal with shifting alliances between large developing countries, Russia and/or China, and smaller poor countries. This won't be a walk in the park.
I suppose my working model is Poland, circa 1939, and the arrangement between Germany and the USSR. Further back, European nations carved up the developing nations. One must simply come to some sort of agreement.
btu2012 wrote:
Did I mention that I find genocide and ethnicide to be a tad morally problematic ? Well, I didn't think you would care
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 1:36 pm Post subject: Re: population control options
btu2012 wrote:
You know Egomancer, you have to be careful what you wish for because the way things are going you might just get your wish. You better bite your tongue when you write such things.
About the Soviet Union in WW2, with all due respect, I think that again you have no idea what you are talking about. Ask the Russians if they think that that carnage increased their society's "fitness".
Btu
Well, I do not want to get into a flame war, but believe me, you do not want to be put into a birth control schema - think how it is to live being a jew under the nazi regime, or a Cambodgian under Pol Pot. Or being an armean in turkey. There is a long history of 'birth control' schemes in the world all ment to reduce population.
Going to soviet union, before ww2 it was not exactly a nation - I am talking about the whole soviet union, not Russia only. The war just tied the connections between the various nations that were forming it. Also the USSR government was a lot more efficient in 45 than in 39. The same ruthlessness was present, but the government was more efficient and the life for the people was better because the country went from a regime of terror to a meritocracy. This is really a long discussion about USSR in 39 and USSR in 45. There are a few russians here and they can confirm or not my theory.
Joined: Sep 24, 2007 Posts: 2584 Location: third from the sun
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 2:47 pm Post subject: Re: population control options
Egomancer wrote:
Well, I do not want to get into a flame war, but believe me, you do not want to be put into a birth control schema - think how it is to live being a jew under the nazi regime, or a Cambodgian under Pol Pot. Or being an armean in turkey. There is a long history of 'birth control' schemes in the world all ment to reduce population.
You are confusing contraception with genocide.
Egomancer wrote:
There are a few russians here and they can confirm or not my theory.
Well I certainly look forward to input on this from people who were born in the former USSR.
Joined: Sep 24, 2007 Posts: 2584 Location: third from the sun
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 2:56 pm Post subject: Re: population control options
Jack wrote:
I suppose my working model is Poland, circa 1939, and the arrangement between Germany and the USSR. Further back, European nations carved up the developing nations. One must simply come to some sort of agreement.
You are assuming that the US will be in the position of one of the successful aggressors, rather than in that of victim. I hate to break it to you, but there is no such assurance. History is full of surprises.
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 3:13 pm Post subject: Re: population control options
btu2012 wrote:
Egomancer,
Hope you won't take this too badly but I really think that you don't know what you are talking about. Ask any Veteran, they will all tell you the same: modern War is Hell, and fitness has nothing to do with it. It's sheer, blind luck (plus technology).
By the way, the Russians could nuke the US at any time (true the US would nuke them back). Who would be the best fit society after such a mutually-suicidal exchange ?
You can't apply this sort of reasoning to modern war, any sufficiently large and sufficiently rich society can now commit genocide at the push of a few buttons. That tells us nothing about fitness.
Also consider this. The US never fought a really powerful adversary since WWII. You can't extrapolate from Panama to a final, genocidal war of survival over resources. It won't be a videogame this time, because the likely adversaries have quite a few toys of their own. Take a look at the Russian and Chinese arsenals (say at globalsecurity.org) and do the math. They can give anyone a run for their money.
Btu
You start with the assumption that you are going to have a 100% delivery of the nuclear missiles to the target which is false. Furthermore you assume that the current delivery rate of the missiles will remain the same. But the technology advances and I can bet that in 10 years at most the curent ICBMs won't have a 100% delivery rate, more a 5-10% one at best. This is because the AA rockets will be more efficient and an umbrella will be put over the developed countries.
I have posted here (in this forum) that there will be 2 elements that will trigger ww3 - and they are an efficient anti ICBM missile system to protect the country against nukes and an electrical tank to invade another country and not to depend on oil. From what I know US is working on both systems and the same do EU.
Going back to the 'best fit society' thing the main idea is that after a war generally survive only the ones that allocate the resources in the most efficient way. I am not talking about the one with the richest people, or with the smartest people or the most beautiful ones, I am talking about the one that puts the right people in the right places and that spends the money the right way. Of course there isn't a clear definition about how to spend money or how to assign people to jobs but I am sure you know what i am talking about.
To develop advanced defence systems you need a lot of money - so you country must have the money and the people (knowledge) to produce them. Also you need stability so you can finish the projects. The list of requirements is long. You do not need to be a democracy to have a functional society (this is one myth propagated now by the US goverment). I will post more about this tomorrow, I go watch a movie now
Joined: Sep 24, 2007 Posts: 2584 Location: third from the sun
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 3:32 pm Post subject: Re: population control options
Egomancer wrote:
Going back to the 'best fit society' thing the main idea is that after a war generally survive only the ones that allocate the resources in the most efficient way.
By your argument, Nazi Germany should have won WW2.
I think that most historians would agree that their military machine was the most modern and efficient in that conflict. One can see this by looking at the kill ratio of German soldiers (I think it was something like 20:1 versus the Russians). Also German tanks, airplanes etc were technically superior to anything produced by the allies until late 1944. Their military organization and training were superb. They were the best "fit" of the combatant societies according to your criteria.
Why did Germany loose given that its military machine was qualitatively superior ?
One word: size. German economy was too small compared to the combined Allied economies. The US, British, Russian military machines were qualitatively inferior, but they were larger when combined and thus overproduced the Germans. That's all. Sheer quantity.
Anyway, this is getting way out of topic. Unfortunately one can't engage everybody so I will have to assume that people who are interested in this thread at least recognize the validity of its premise, namely that genocidal wars aren't a good thing and that we ought to avoid them. Ultimately it's a moral call as Jack says, so if someone doesn't share this premise then they should be free to bet their survival on their Darwinian fitness. I wish them good luck.
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 4:50 pm Post subject: Re: population control options
btu2012 wrote:
You are assuming that the US will be in the position of one of the successful aggressors, rather than in that of victim. I hate to break it to you, but there is no such assurance. History is full of surprises.
Joined: Sep 24, 2007 Posts: 2584 Location: third from the sun
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 6:21 pm Post subject: Re: population control options
Jack wrote:
Good point. Still, better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
Well this thread is about ways to reduce the number of global deaths as much as possible. Unfortunately this must involve a certain level of coercion, which is unavoidable when faced with a survival-level threat (and of course there is no society which is completely free of coercion, though coercion mutually agreed upon -- what we usually call laws -- is considered ethically acceptable by most people).
Since I've been lurking on this site for years, I know that you don't believe any mitigation is possible or even advisable and that you prefer the way of war. I respect that choice even though I do not agree with it. However notice that societies at war are usually much more coercive than peaceful ones. The same is true of a Mad Max scenario which would be dominated by warlords as we see in Somalia. Warlords tend to be very coercive people, they punish disobedience by death.
But then I guess you'd expect to become one of the warlords so maybe that's not a concern for you. It's a very risky bet though.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
