Passive population control - would it work? March 19, 2017 | Registered: 18 years ago Posts: 9,973 |
Re: Passive population control - would it work? March 19, 2017 | Registered: 10 years ago Posts: 2,062 |
Re: Passive population control - would it work? March 19, 2017 | Registered: 8 years ago Posts: 499 |
Re: Passive population control - would it work? March 20, 2017 | Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 9,199 |
Quote
The guy going 90 mph isn't just going to kill himself, he is probably going to take someone with him.
Re: Passive population control - would it work? March 20, 2017 | Registered: 7 years ago Posts: 17 |
Quote
My theory is that pot is being legalized because of the opioid crisis. The "big government" answer is to severely restrict opioid prescriptions and give pot to people in chronic pain. Then they will commission "studies" to show how effective it is.
Re: Passive population control - would it work? March 20, 2017 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 1,842 |
Re: Passive population control - would it work? March 20, 2017 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 1,842 |
Re: Passive population control - would it work? March 20, 2017 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 2,308 |
Quote
contemplativeintrovert
Let the breeders be condemned as LGBT people were, and sometimes are, and I expect the population will decline, as most breeders don't want children, they want to follow the herd.
Quote
bell_flower
My theory is that pot is being legalized because of the opioid crisis. The "big government" answer is to severely restrict opioid prescriptions and give pot to people in chronic pain. Then they will commission "studies" to show how effective it is.
Quote
Cambion
Instead, give that money to people who don't have kids and who get sterilized. Reward intelligence and responsibility for a change.
Re: Passive population control - would it work? March 20, 2017 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 2,308 |
Quote
mr. neptune
There are even things that individuals can do. Maybe some people think I am weird but I never tell a pregnant woman "congratulations" but then I guess mostly women do that. Stop with the preggo parking spaces. Never attend baby showers or "sprinkles". Why do women go to them anyways?
Re: Passive population control - would it work? March 20, 2017 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 1,304 |
Re: Passive population control - would it work? March 20, 2017 | Registered: 11 years ago Posts: 3,576 |
Quote
Cambion
"Population control" is a term with a bad reputation right along with "eugenics," and I also know that if any form of either one were to be actively put into effect, everyone (read: breeders) would be bitching left and right that reproducing is a basic human right and laws prohibiting or limiting it is a violation of said rights.
But what if more passive means were used as population control? It may not get results as fast, but I wonder how effective they would be. I'll list some examples below.
1) Eliminate speed limits entirely. If someone wants to blitz through a neighborhood at 90 miles per hour and wrap their car around a utility pole, let them. While we're at it, let's eliminate just about all traffic laws entirely, such as being required to wear a seatbelt and driving drunk being a crime. We all know the dangers of doing those things, so if people want to choose to be stupid, they can learn the lesson the hard way.
2) Make all drugs legal. I know people turn to drugs for different reasons, but if they want to kill themselves for a high, don't protect them from themselves. Everyone fucking knows that drugs aren't healthy - it's drilled into your head from the time you start school. Cigarettes kill a lot of people too through cancer, yet those are legal.
3) Make birth control, sterilization and abortion free and widely accessible, and encourage people to make use of them.
4) Meanwhile, make breeding the least attractive life choice. Stop giving people special tax breaks for having kids and do not offer increased benefits for additional kids born while the parents are on the dole. If parents want to make stupid choices, then they'll have to learn to make due with less. They'll still have the full ability to choose, but this might make them think a little harder about those choices.
5) Instead, give that money to people who don't have kids and who get sterilized. Reward intelligence and responsibility for a change.
6) Increased support for same-sex relationships since just about all gay/lesbian couples who have children adopt instead of producing biological children.
7) Legalization of human euthanasia. Honestly, this should already be a thing. There is no reason that people who are suffering shouldn't be allowed to choose to die with dignity instead of forcing them to stay alive until the very end.
8) Make domestic (as in American) adoption cheaper and easier. I don't mean make it so easy that any Chester can waltz in and buy himself a harem, but adopting in this country is so fucking expensive, difficult and uncertain that nobody wants to do it. Sometimes you spend five figures and wait five years and still don't get a kid.
The downside is that some of these things wouldn't just result in the injury or death of the person directly involved - they might wind up taking someone else with them who was doing everything they're supposed to do. And each one of those things I mentioned have their own unique downsides too.
Re: Passive population control - would it work? March 20, 2017 | Registered: 8 years ago Posts: 499 |
Re: Passive population control - would it work? March 20, 2017 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 1,842 |
Re: Passive population control - would it work? March 21, 2017 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 12,434 |
Re: Passive population control - would it work? March 21, 2017 | Registered: 18 years ago Posts: 9,973 |
Re: Passive population control - would it work? March 22, 2017 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 12,434 |
Quote
Cambion
Like you guys have said, stigmatizing breeding would probably go a long way in reducing it too since so many people reproduce simply to follow the herd/Life Script. I don't think it would ever happen because people have regarded breeding as a miraculous, worthwhile life choice for so long that it would take a lot and a long time for it to do a total 180. This could go along with option #4 up top - quit catering to breeders (financially, legally, socially, etc.) and people might be more reluctant to breed. I suggested paying people to not breed because monetary incentives are usually a good way to make people do what you want them to do and they'll think they're making bank.
Re: Passive population control - would it work? March 25, 2017 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 1,735 |
Re: Passive population control - would it work? March 25, 2017 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 2,308 |
Quote
selidororous
Something needs to be done.
I live in the most overpopulated state in the nation - this tiny little strip of swamp was not designed to hold 20 million people.
At some point it has got to stop.
Re: Passive population control - would it work? March 25, 2017 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 1,735 |
Quote
StudioFiftyFour
Quote
selidororous
Something needs to be done.
I live in the most overpopulated state in the nation - this tiny little strip of swamp was not designed to hold 20 million people.
At some point it has got to stop.
It won't. There will be no legal intervention to decrease population. The usual suspects--violence, famine, disease--will reduce it over time.
Re: Passive population control - would it work? March 25, 2017 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 2,308 |
Quote
selidororous
Quote
StudioFiftyFour
Quote
selidororous
Something needs to be done.
I live in the most overpopulated state in the nation - this tiny little strip of swamp was not designed to hold 20 million people.
At some point it has got to stop.
It won't. There will be no legal intervention to decrease population. The usual suspects--violence, famine, disease--will reduce it over time.
Or the peninsula falling off into the Gulf due to the weight of so many people? LOL
Re: Passive population control - would it work? March 26, 2017 | Registered: 8 years ago Posts: 232 |
Re: Passive population control - would it work? March 26, 2017 | Registered: 8 years ago Posts: 353 |
Re: Passive population control - would it work? March 26, 2017 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 1,735 |
Quote
happyhiker
I took Economics 101 in college, so I think the best way to stop excessive breeding is to stop subsidizing it. It's that simple. And not just tax breaks. Health insurance should be like car insurance, for unforseable events. You break your leg or get cancer, health insurance should kick in, just like if you get rear-ended in your car. You decide to have a baby, you should fucking pay for it - ALL of it - just like if you decide to add fancy rims or re-paint your car. No child should starve, so if you can't afford to feed yours, we will give it to someone who can afford it.
If we actually made parents bear the entire cost of their children, there would be fewer children born. As it is, in my country (USA), an unemployed woman can get knocked up and know that she has just secured housing, food and healthcare for both her and her child. Married, middle-class people know that their employee health plan will pay for the pregnancy and birth, and that their employers will pay them to take time off with the baby, not to mention the insurance for the kids who will see a doctor every three weeks. They will also get a huge tax credit for their bundles of joy. The shitty public schools with ever-increasing budgets and ever-decreasing results that their children attend will also be financed by the taxpayers.
Re: Passive population control - would it work? March 26, 2017 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 3,978 |
Re: Passive population control - would it work? March 26, 2017 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 2,308 |
Quote
paragon schnitzophonic
At this point, breeders have no excuses to sit here and say that they have this kid and it's the responsibility of The Village™ to pay this child's way through life and the financial burden should not be placed solely on the people that brought it into existence. I saw this post on Facebook where somebody bitched at how people think poor people shouldn't have kids and that having kids is a right and blah blah blah. First of all, if your ass is poor, having a child means you're going to stay poor. Wherever you are on the socioeconomic scale before breeding is where you'll stay after breeding. Secondly, you have this kid and realize oh shit, it needs food, diapers, clothes, etc. on a consistent basis. How are you going to pay for all that AND keeping your electricity and water running, keep up the rent so you don't end up out on the streets, and maintaining your mode of transportation so you can get to work to pay for all that? Because you're not going to sit there, make a piss-poor decision on the basis of "Whatever, whatever, I do what I want" and then emotionally hijack me and society as a whole into feeling like your burden of your own doing is somehow on us.
...
Frankly, if breeders want all these subsidies for breeding, it can be taken out of the paychecks of other breeders. They can form their own village, where they have to give where they take, instead of trying to foist it upon the childfree.