• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

If you think the earth is over-populated, would you rather...

Which would you rather happen?

  • Reduce life expectancy

    Votes: 2 3.8%

  • Reduce birth rate

    Votes: 51 96.2%
  • Total voters
    53
E

EricK

Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2005
Messages
536
Location
Romford, England
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
If you think the earth is over-populated, would you rather see it decrease by a reduction in life expectancy, or by a reduction in birth rate (assuming each had the same end result in terms of number of people alive in, say, 2050)? Another way of looking at it is would you rather have more people get to experience life, each for a shorter average time, or have fewer get to experience life but for a longer time each? And what are your reasons for your preference?

Even if you don't think the earth is over-populated, you can still answer the question of which you would prefer to happen and why, even if your ideal is for neither to happen.
 
My fantasy scenario: everybody agrees to make this the last generation. All the money we were going to put toward future generations goes toward eradicating poverty and hunger from this one. Nobody has to worry about pollution or scarcity, because we will have more than enough to go around and no future people to feel guilty about. We party our way to the end of the species and euthanize all our pets.

Of course, that's only a fantasy...

But realistically, I hope that fewer people decide to have children, more decide to adopt, and society in general makes adoption a less tortuous and expensive process than it currently is.
 
Another benefit to fighting wage/capital inequality is that as the more people become prosperous the less children they have.
 
My conscious decision was to NOT propagate, hence when I reach the end of my life expectancy, I will have contributed to reducing the population through not providing a replacement.
 
I go for a drastic reduction in the life expectancy of all the sorry sons of bitches who get in the way of me and mine controlling far more than our share.
 
A reduction in life expectancy is a lot better for the overall welfare of society than a reduced birth rate, so I'll go with that one.
 
rousseau said:
A reduction in life expectancy is a lot better for the overall welfare of society than a reduced birth rate, so I'll go with that one.
Click to expand...
How so?

And is the welfare of society your 1ry consideration? What about the welfare of the ecosystem? Doesn't our society depend on a healthy biosphere, regardless of all other factors?
 
seyorni said:
How so?

And is the welfare of society your 1ry consideration? What about the welfare of the ecosystem? Doesn't our society depend on a healthy biosphere, regardless of all other factors?
Click to expand...

People that are old tend not to be productive workers, and usually need to lean on society. People that are younger are productive and can support themselves. If you have less young people and more old people there are more people to support with less doing the supporting, where if you have more young people and less old people the opposite is true.
 
rousseau said:
People that are old tend not to be productive workers, and usually need to lean on society. People that are younger are productive and can support themselves. If you have less young people and more old people there are more people to support with less doing the supporting, where if you have more young people and less old people the opposite is true.
Click to expand...

jesus christ
 
rousseau said:
People that are old tend not to be productive workers, and usually need to lean on society. People that are younger are productive and can support themselves. If you have less young people and more old people there are more people to support with less doing the supporting, where if you have more young people and less old people the opposite is true.
Click to expand...
Good point. Perhaps the solution is to euthanize people on their 60th birthday.
 
In wealthy nations, people are pretty much a net drain on society for the first 25 years of their lives; and for the last 15-25 years.

In poor nations, people are a net drain on society for about the first 10 years of their lives, and rarely live ten years beyond the point where they become old enough to be a net drain - indeed, in such societies, the accumulation of knowledge of the elder is usually a valuable resource until his or her death.

The question of the value of the elderly is a red herring, however; the OP presents a question that is based on a false conditional. IF you think the world is overpopulated, THEN you are wrong. It isn't, and unless something dramatic changes, it never will be.

The reason it never will be is because people are getting richer; and rich people don't, on average, have lots of kids.
 
rousseau said:
People that are old tend not to be productive workers, and usually need to lean on society. People that are younger are productive and can support themselves. If you have less young people and more old people there are more people to support with less doing the supporting, where if you have more young people and less old people the opposite is true.
Click to expand...

I find fault with your premise.

Kindly explain, then, why there are a record number of young adults living at home.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jan/21/record-levels-young-adults-living-home-ons

Obviously, they cannot support themselves.

I would not be so hasty to kill off the old folks, for they control much of the current wealth and knowledge that might prove useful going forward. :D
 
The question of the value of the elderly is a red herring, however; the OP presents a question that is based on a false conditional. IF you think the world is overpopulated, THEN you are wrong. It isn't, and unless something dramatic changes, it never will be.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the teeming millions of Sub Sahara Africans that will go to bed hungry tonight.
 
EricK said:
If you think the earth is over-populated, would you rather see it decrease by a reduction in life expectancy, or by a reduction in birth rate (assuming each had the same end result in terms of number of people alive in, say, 2050)? Another way of looking at it is would you rather have more people get to experience life, each for a shorter average time, or have fewer get to experience life but for a longer time each? And what are your reasons for your preference?

Even if you don't think the earth is over-populated, you can still answer the question of which you would prefer to happen and why, even if your ideal is for neither to happen.
Click to expand...

Would I rather people have fewer babies, or would I rather watch more living people die sooner than they would have otherwise?

That's not a very difficult question, is it? Obviously, having fewer babies involves less human suffering. The problem of course, is actually getting people to have fewer babies. The only thing that seems to work is encouraging couples to start families at an older average age.
 
Underseer said:
Would I rather people have fewer babies, or would I rather watch more living people die sooner than they would have otherwise?

That's not a very difficult question, is it? Obviously, having fewer babies involves less human suffering. The problem of course, is actually getting people to have fewer babies. The only thing that seems to work is encouraging couples to start families at an older average age.
Click to expand...
And birth control in over populated third world countries. Get the catholic church in particular to get the hell out of there, or to stop preaching that condoms are sinful and start distributing them instead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom