It is accepted in mainstream science that earth has an overpopulation problem, therefore directly linked to the global warming theory.

Why global warming can result from humans?


Demand for products/goods/services so producers increase supply.


The more demand there is, the more goods and services need to be produced, and this, according to some global warming proponents, introduces carbon emissions from the manufacturing/production economic process.

Consumption, production, all produces carbon emissions.

Therefore, we can safely theorize that demand comes from human population numbers.


One of the most prominent methods are pushers of population control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_control


This is not a conspiracy theory, but a fact that is happening, population control agendas and programs.


Let's discuss what methods one can take to manage populations on the planet. It is without a doubt that the earth is being ravaged partly due to accepted theory of overpopulation. The more humans, the more chain reaction that would react in the harm to the environment, and therefore there is a need to control, or possibly reduce the number of populations on this planet.

The methods used of course, can range from common sense acceptable to outright unethical and possibly breaking international laws.

Common sense acceptable methods

1. Use contraceptives but met with staunch opposition from religious institutions, such as the Vatican.
2. Proper education/family planning.
3. Better welfare for the retired, no need to depend on children.
4. One child policy as done by China, with forced abortion, to the applause of David Rockefeller.
5. Improve economic conditions of poor nations so they would need to depend less on children (by having more children) to bring home the money.

But due to cultural influence, stubbornness, and 'Let everyone worry about overpopulation while I continue to have more of my own children', population may continue to grow and saturate the planet's ability to sustain life. Religious factions want more population so they can be the dominant religion/power on the planet, hence encourages own religious network of followers to have more children. Human ego/greed/power/selfishness encourages explosive population growth. Believe in the end times and messiahnic/apocalyptic religious dogma is preparing certain people for the final solution and they might want to be the standing victor by sheer population numbers alone.

Traditional Chinese culture encourages more and more children, the more the merrier. Go forth and multiply is also the motto of Abrahamic faiths.

Overpopulation itself has been debated by many and there're equally skeptics around.

One of the most prominent pro-population control policy pushers are the Rockefellers, and now, even Bill Gates has joined.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle6350303.ece

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClqUcScwnn8






Scientists have jumped on the bandwagon and agree there's a need to reduce population of earth.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Pianka
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holdren

"Overpopulation was an early concern and interest. In a 1969 article, Holdren and co-author Paul R. Ehrlich argued that, "if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come."[19] In 1973 Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because "210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many."[20] In 1977, Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Holdren co-authored the textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment; they discussed the possible role of a wide variety of solutions to overpopulation, from voluntary family planning to enforced population controls, including forced sterilization for women after they gave birth to a designated number of children, and recommended "the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences" such as access to birth control and abortion.["

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/21...ulation-growth/




Whether you agree there's a population overload or not, it has already been accepted as part of the global warming theory that we're the cause, and we can only be the cause because there're too many of us, resulting in too many demand for food and goods, causing more carbon emissions.


Now the question is, what are the acceptable methods to use when humans still stubbornly refuse to heed overpopulation advices?

If population continues to grow, scientists would be forced to come up with more scientific data and take drastic measures and present to political forces on the need to reduce the population.

The problem comes when

1. Who gets to have children, and who is not allowed? (Eugenics come to play)
2. How do you reduce the stubborn population numbers without being labeled a mass murderer ?


If it does come to the fact that overpopulation is real, and something must be done about it, but yet the masses do not want to subscribe or control their reproduction, or heed advice given by scientists, what would have to be done to control the inevitable rape of the planet by the sheer numbers of human populations ?


Would ethics and laws need to be broken and humanity sacrificed for the future of the planet and more deserving humans ?


If you're given the task to solve the overpopulation problem of a stubborn population that would not heed mainstream advice to reduce their numbers of children, and population continue to grow, what drastic measures would you take as a scientist to reduce population growth, and how do you decide who should be allowed to live, and who should die ?

Eugenics would most definitely play a role in population control, and how do you choose the descendants of the human race , based on what criteria?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Who gets to reproduce, and who doesn't when there's a mandatory need to manage population numbers on the planet ?


Remember, no conspiracy theory on this thread, as this is a much needed discussion on this taboo topic.

You're the scientist now. The world is overpopulated and people are stubborn and refuse to reduce the 'carbon' they're producing.


You've been tasked by world leaders to solve the overpopulation of a stubborn population. What would you do ? What methods would you use?

Tell us your methods, whether ethical or unethical, they're all welcomed in this thread.



I'll start with my method, which is borderline or outright unethical/immoral for population growth management. Remember I am supposed to think like a scientist forced to reduce population by any means possible if all else fails. I am in a position where I make decisions and I am better than you, more deserving than you intellectually to exist on this planet, so population reduction/control does not involve myself, because I am better than you now, as I am tasked as a prestigious scientist to solve this problem.

This is what I would do to you.


1. Stealth sterilization through drinking water, vaccines, food, products which causes infertility to chosen countries of 'undesirables'. Bisphenol-A and other hormones in daily food/products to interfere with human fertility. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A




2. Carcinogenic food supply to cause disease like cancer to prematurely terminate lives of 'undesireables'. I will suppress scientific studies of ingredients used for food/human use from being exposed as carcinogenic, just as how Hadley scientists would suppress data.

3. Force countries to implement 1 child policies through trade embargo/sanctions for those who refuse to comply.

4. Change culture through education, media, by empowering the opposite sex away from traditional family/wife/mother role, give them more independence. Make the world more material and people more demanding so they would not get married easily or become too dependent on men if they're women.

5. Subjugate religious institutions, espionage and sabotage religion so they would be focused on other things other than propagation of their numbers either through conversion of uncontrolled reproduction. Influence religious leaders to my direction.

6. Biological weapon, release pandemic while keeping the antidote to only selected few (through Eugenics), and let the virus wipe out as many people as possible, blame it on God/nature and keep saying 'we're long overdue for a pandemic'.



If you have anymore ways of how to reduce human population, or if you disagree that we're overpopulated, feel free to contribute your opinions here.

There's no right or wrong answer in this thread. Everything goes.

How you participate in this thread reflects on how ready you are to tackle this taboo subject.

This post has been edited by manami: Nov 22 2009, 06:49 PM

actually global warming can be solved by inject sulfur into atmosphere, the real problem is limited natural resource to keep up with unlimited demands from us. therefore insane inflation is happening to everyone.. to solve this problem of scarcity, its time to create 'independent' new 'land' and re-create/grow the supply and fulfill the human demand.


for example :




Attached thumbnail(s)

That would still not solve the overpopulation problem, because we would still continue to reproduce.


Changing geographical locations would not reduce demand for production of goods, foods and that requires uses of natural resources, which according to the global warming theory, contributes to carbon emissions, and humans are the primary source of global warming.


Relocation within the planet may not be a solution, at least that's what the global warming supporters are believing.


Short of artificially induced sterilization and mass murder (either publicly or stealth through food/medicine) I see only space exploration and colonization as a more ethical route but the problem is...


How many are willing to fund this project, put down differences and engage in a star trek world?



Based on the technology we have nowadays, that are disclosed (not counting black ops projects) how ready is the technology available to allow man to explore space?



Finally boils down to the question, which way is easier to solve the overpopulation problem?


Find a habitable planet, colonize, or risk interstellar war if there exists other more advanced life forms that would not allow us outside of our planet or for us to colonize their planets.


Or just murder the population steathily without their knowledge?


The latter option that is morally bankrupt seems like a much cheaper and easier approach to take. Normal humans, the non-scientists, the average eater that is not needed for the advancement of human race, are expendable, dispensable, no ?

horatioken: We don't know what side effects will come out of sulphur dioxide into the upper atmosphere - remember, low level sulphur dioxide leads to acid rain, so research is undergoing on what happens when we pump sulphur dioxide in the upper atmosphere.

manami: The main method right now for these NGOs is women's education. There's plenty of empirical evidence that birth rates drop considerably when women get educated, and it tends to drop further the more affluent the population gets; e.g. see the developed countries. Most of the populations are stable, or growing because of immigration.

i believe family planning should be practised and encouraged more than population control.

Yes it does work but does it work faster than others who're not educated who continue to reproduce?


The united nations publicly available study

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publicati...op2300final.pdf


states that the world population is estimated by 2050, to be maximum at 10.6 billion, and 7.4 billion at minimum,

Which is still high by the standard of the planet's ability to sustain humanity, according to the scientists Eric Pianka who said we passed the reasonable level to sustain all humanity long time ago.


The vatican is still not accepting birth control and continues to ask christians to reproduce.


We've past the sustainable level and are not 'dying' fast enough due to longer life expectancy.



One way to make humans die faster is artificially induced disease like cancer and others, which is not ethical, and also suppression of nutrition information and possibly nutrients themselves.

Are scientists willing to use these artificial methods to deprive life continuing necessities in order to induce a famine to reduce population ?


That would be one method I would use if I am tasked to manage population and throw my ethics out the door.


It is much faster, cheaper to achieve the target population than education, which costs money and may not always work as people can change their mind at anytime of their lives, so the only insurance are those who are guaranteed to not reproduce either from infertility or imminent death.

Remember, we're throwing out ethics. Ethics no longer matter when the future of humanity is at great risk due to overpopulation/global warming theories.

What we want are to discuss ways to manage population, good or bad, you can discuss, or if you don't believe there's an overpopulation problem, discuss why and how.

What if that does not work? We're in the context now where nobody wants to follow mainstream advice of reducing your own population or family count.

If this works then we wouldn't have famine anymore or cause any global warming/carbon emission problems according to global warming proponents.


Traditional and religious values are still very strong in the quest for increasing our 'family' numbers for inter-dependence.


If education actually worked on everyone, China wouldn't need to force one child policy on their population.

This post has been edited by manami: Nov 22 2009, 08:07 PM

Birth control.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_control

ok... overpopulation matters... before i suggest my idea. im not sure how advance our current science and technology is.

but assume if it is possible..

the solution here is.. i believe by the time human were around 65 years old or more.. most of them are incapable/weak physically. so just remove their body and keep our head in a jar.. (im not kidding..lol) to reduce any physical activities + less producing the carbon, less consumption as well..

i dont believe totally in birth control, theres no way you can stop idiot or smart people from producing because thats what make us today. communism, nazi ruling wont stop human from producing either..

This post has been edited by horatioken: Nov 22 2009, 08:42 PM


Attached image(s)

It is working; see http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi...rt_in&tdim=true

Check it for most of the countries; you'll notice a very strong correlation between women's education levels/wealth and birth rates. The next great frontier is to reach Africa, and increase the penetration of women's education in other countries.

Oh dear, very inappropriate in the context of what you are saying

---

Added on November 22, 2009, 8:51 pmNo way now because there is no political will. I'm not saying we should move towards an authoritarian government, but we must continue to insist and harass(maybe not the most suitable word, but you get the point) all these governments and religious authorities to accept birth control. In time they will accept what is necessary.

This post has been edited by frags: Nov 22 2009, 08:51 PM

That's why natural disaster happens once awhile. They know what's going on up there, you know, thus problem solves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natur...s_by_death_toll

This post has been edited by hiphopstar: Nov 22 2009, 09:08 PM

That is fertility, which isn't the population count level. Population still isn't going down to desired levels because based on the UN data, population will continue to climb, instead of being reduced from our current 6++ billion.

The question now is, what is the desired level of headcount ?

Reducing fertility is one thing. The other aspect of reducing population is hastening death, which is the most highly controversial method. Life expectancy is increasing due to modern medicine, hygiene.

This education only works in countries that cooperate with you, but in places like Africa and other 3rd/4th world countries ravaged by warlords and dictators, it would be impossible to educate without being caught or accused of preaching other religion.

And if going by your data being correct, then how would it justify humanity as the cause of global warming ? Why should there still be a global warming carbon tax or other politically motivated policies due to global warming which in the first place, was attributed to human population/consumption/production? If according to the data by google, that world fertility rate is down, why is there a need for carbon tax and global warming political policies?

How does that tally with the data chart given by UN which contradicts what google has produced? Who is right ? Should we trust google or the UN ? Is google's data reliable compared to the UN's ?


Natural disasters are a poor way to reduce population, based on today's number of headcounts. The largest disaster is the black death and spanish flu, which would not seem much by today's standards, if you compare to the population count now and then.

Now the question is, when the pandemic strikes, how many are expected to be taken out ? And then, highly controversial question, do we hasten the pandemic or let it occur naturally? There're still debates as to whether a natural pandemic is enough to reduce population, or a man-made pandemic could do the job, which either way, the objective is to reduce the population to desired levels.

Biological weapon is a reality/possibility. It is also not easy to trace and proof that a pandemic is deliberate man-made disaster, so as a scientist if this option is available and there is an urgency to reduce population, would this method be used?

Remember, we're discussing in a context where voluntary birth control is not working or not working fast enough to achieve the desired levels.

Condoms break, people get horny at wrong times and many, many many still believe in coitus interruptus.

Fertility matters; if you can cut down the level of fertility, population growth will eventually stop. The target right now is the fertility rate of 2.2, that's around the level at which the population more or less remains stable. We will probably hit 9-10 billion by 2050, but the rate of growth has fallen significantly directly due to the drop in fertility in the past 50 years; and many credit that to increasing education among women. There's no need to go to extreme measures yet, unless it can be shown that education and increasing levels of wealth will not be able to bring population growth to a halt, or reverse it.

Notice also that plenty of the developed countries with relatively wealthy populations (the US doesn't really count here, because it has quite a large income disparity, and a large, relatively poor immigrant population, relative to its general population anyway) all have fertility rates below 2.2, i.e. below replacement rate, and if you blocked immigration you'd have a drop in the population instead over time. Which is why a lot of people are advocating for women's education, and economic growth as a means to help people get out of poverty, and reduce population in the long run without any forceful measures.

As for your statement about Africa, no it isn't true, it is already starting to work in a few sub-Saharan African countries, e.g. see Nigeria, etc, etc.

Fertility is a way to cut population count, like it or not, and the good news is over the past 50 years it's been heading downwards below the replacement rate mark; i.e. our population will start dropping

This post has been edited by bgeh: Nov 22 2009, 10:49 PM

Well if that's true then it's good news, but now, how do we explain the global warming carbon tax on the world? That would really be a problem now for those global warming carbon taxation advocates, since as you said, fertility is down, and population also going down, so hence logically speaking, carbon emission also going down, but on the contrary, the copenhagen summit is just around the corner, and every UN nation is going to be made to sign the lisbon treaty and made to pay carbon tax.

Even if population is dropping, would it be fast enough ? You still have to deal with religious institutions like the Vatican and the Islamic world. Areas where militant Muslims rule, women has no rights, and because women has no rights to decide how many children they should give birth, we would still have problems with overpopulation especially in these 4th world areas.

Now you have another problem, financial armageddon. If and when it happens, you got no more jobs, can't feed and pacify the population that is wrecked with unemployment. What happens then ?

America is a country to watch out for now, as it is heading towards hyperinflation and it's financial markets are gone.

The collapse of the financial pyramid based on debt/fiat money would have impact on the ability of the economy to sustain a population, because that could massively alter what is needed to sustain a particular LEVEL of population, regardless of population decreasing or not.

If the economy collapses to a point where it could not sustain even the drop of population we estimated to be sustainable, then you have a new anchor/bench and have to revise that anchor point of population ideal level.

It is no longer just about reducing population level, but the economy system, finance must change as fiat money and debt based economy (MLM pyramid) is also a factor you must consider for sustainable population level.

Carbon taxes are different things altogether. Consider per-capita carbon emissions. Developing countries release, per capita (per person) much less carbon than developed countries. Cutting the population will do that to some extent but not much. Also, economic growth tends to be tied up with carbon emissions, which is why even if you get a decreasing population, which is more wealthy overall, you might not get a reduction in emissions, which is why a tax is necessary to account for this.

Also, stop going into conspiracy theory mode. The Lisbon treaty is for EU nations only, and has been ratified, and has nothing to do with carbon taxes, and has absolutely nothing to do with UN nations, and the Copenhagen summit, which by the way, is pretty much going to fail in terms of getting an agreement.

What do you mean by fast enough? Heck that we're going to have a fall in human population is already good enough! I agree that the Vatican's stance isn't helping, but even in strongly Catholic Latin American countries, birth rates have dropped significantly. Heck, check Saudi Arabia's figures if you want an example of an Islamic kingdom, or Iran, etc. etc...

If you noticed, there aren't that many countries being run by Islamic militants too, which in the context of population is a good thing

And really, do you want to talk about population or your ideas of some end of the world as we know it conspiracy theory? Because the tone I'm getting from your posts is some idea of "imminent doom awaits!!!" mixed with conspiracies.

manami,

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayst...ory_id=14744915

<< Falling fertility

Oct 29th 2009
From The Economist print edition
Astonishing falls in the fertility rate are bringing with them big benefits>>

Population growth is SLOWING...

Dreamer

I think I confused the climate change treaty with lisbon treaty.
I am not in conspiracy mode. This climate change carbon tax source I hear is by Lord Christopher Monkcton himself.

Like I said before, people love throwing the conspiracy theory label around on things they do not understand and screw up threads.

I request that you stop throwing the conspiracy theory label around without doing any research and spoil my threads.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/18/vide...-in-copenhagen/





And like i said, even if population rate falls, if the economy cannot sustain it, it would still be a problem. You seem to ignore the economic/financial aspects of it. Remember money is no longer backed by gold, it's mostly fiat based now, and in US case it's backed by debt and more debt.

This post has been edited by manami: Nov 23 2009, 12:01 AM

And Christopher Monckton has been known for a long time to be an anti-EU, man-made global warming sceptic. The title "Lord" pretty much means nothing.

So you're attacking his character now instead of debating his points? Is he a 'conspiracy nut' to you as well ?