How many kids would you like?

[Ikhnaton]

the earth has ways of controlling its population. don't forget about natural disasters, and then there are of course wars. think about it, wasn't there that big Earthquake in India that killed over 10,000 people in one shot?

 

then there is of course the Darwin factor: the idiots are killing themselves off faster than the smart people are dying, often in very humorous ways.

 

Every year there is at least one big natural disaster. the population will stay under control.

 

Also, don't forget the adaptability of humans. If space is limited, we will find a way to live comfortably. If food is limited, we will find some way to nurish ourselves with synthetics or something. We may not all be able to live on 5 acres of land and have prime rib for dinner every night, but i think those are sacrifices we can reasonably make. We, as Americans, throw out as much food as some countries consume, and i'm not talking 3rd world countries.

 

We're used to excess. Just look at the rate of obesity in the US. almost everyone who has a license has a car, housing developments are being built at furious rates... we've got it all handed to us here. Other countries have a lot less and dont' even think that they are missing out on anything. They are happy with what they have (and i am not talking about 3rd world countries).

[Nute Gunray]

The parts of the world that are incapable of feeding themselves NOW will be the same ones that are incapable of feeding themselves in the FUTURE. There will be no real change.

Europe and North America can fed ourselves now and will continue to have this ability. Worst comes to worst, we sit behind our military and technological supremacy and ride it out. Africa is going to starve itself to death regardless of how many kids I have.

[edlib]

Perhaps, but we've always had natural and man-made disasters, and yet the population is currently higher than ever before, and steadily climbing.

 

I'm also worried about the constant encroachment of humankind on what were previously habitats for other species. We don't live alone here, and we often forget that when it comes to the needs of our own species. Unfortunately, many of the envornments we are imposing ourselves upon are fragile, and don't react well to human intrusion.

I can forsee, if the population growth goes unchecked, a day when all that exists on Earth is: mankind, the plants and animals we have domesticated for our use in agriculture, insects, and vermin who live on our refuse. All the rest of the world's bio-diversity will exist only as specimins on displays in zoos, or as samples in a DNA lab somewhere. The problem is when it comes to having space to live it often comes down to "them-or-us",.. and you know what? We'll always win.

I may get labeled a "tree-hugger" by some of you for these views, but so be it. I don't feel I am. I'm just a guy who thinks there are enough of us to go around already, and cannot really see the need for more. Why would more than 6 billion of us be a good thing? I don't believe our survival at this point is in question. I feel it's just a case of "more-is-more." What could our species achieve with 10 or 12 billion that we can't achieve with 6 or 8? I still feel all the potential problems outweigh all the objections.

Now, if we can only get our collective asses in motion towards colonizing the nearby planets already...

[Ikhnaton]

i think we can easily handle a few billion more.

 

just remember that the earth can kick our asses any day of the week. all it takes are a few really big earthquakes, some volcanos and some hurricanes and/or tornados, and it could easily wipe out a few million in one shot.

[Borg Collective]

If you are that concerned about overpopulation, we will gladly remove a portion of your world's population.

 

Originally posted by Ikhnaton

i'm 5th of 7

 

Designation confirmed, Unit 5^th of 7.

 

This post is being input by 2^nd of 6.

[edlib]

Well, I really hope so. I am a realist. I know my personal views aren't going to change the path the world is taking, but If people could just become aware of what's going on around them...

I know that even if the entire planet were to agree today on a plan trying to stem the human tide, it would very likely still be too late to put it into effect before it could keep us from reaching at least 10 billion. And since that's not likely to happen any time soon...

It is something that every human alive in the near future is going to have to think about at some point.

[JR2000Z]

What about 14th of 1424.23201?

[duder]

Originally posted by Nute Gunray

The parts of the world that are incapable of feeding themselves NOW will be the same ones that are incapable of feeding themselves in the FUTURE. There will be no real change.

Europe and North America can fed ourselves now and will continue to have this ability. Worst comes to worst, we sit behind our military and technological supremacy and ride it out. Africa is going to starve itself to death regardless of how many kids I have.

 

Is this meant to be funny?

 

I hope so.

[Nute Gunray]

It's funny because it's TRUE.

Face it, regardless of what WE do, parts of the world like Africa are doomed. They're too backwards for their own good and refuse to be helped. We give them technology and they refuse to use it. We give them food to feed their five kids so they have three more.

Worst case scenario: Europe and North America have to ignore the rest of the world, actively defend themselves, and take what we need by force (assuming it's something we don't have). The only thing the US is incapable of producing enough of is oil. In the worst case, we'd be able to forcibly take the oil. OPEC can't control production when OPEC is dead and the Arabian oil fields are US territory.

When it comes down to me having less kids than I want or the other guy starving to death, then the other guy is SOL. That's probably the most natural thing in the world to think too. You'll never see a bear giving another bear food, but you'll see a bear with as many cubs as it's capable of having.

[Darth Sceltor]

I agree that education is the key. Some countries need to learn that more kids doesn't guaratee support from them later in life. All it guarantees is less food now.

[Flying Beastie]

Oh, I adore children. . . but I could never eat a whole one.

*long pause*

That was a joke.

--Hexadecimal (Reboot: My Two Bobs)

 

Seriously though, I do love kids, though I'd probably be a wierd parent. Can you imagine me getting called into their school?

 

PRINCIPLE: Mr. Brown?

ME: Yes?

PRINCIPLE: Could you please come to take your daughter home? I just pulled her inside after she started a fight with a fellow student.

*pause*

ME: Did she win?

 

In the unlikely event I ever become a parent, I'm one of the few guys who's actually considered names: Arthur for a boy, Ariadne for a girl.

 

Incidentally, a fortune teller once told me that I'd have two daughters (seriously). Though, with my luck they'd probably turn out like Daria and Quin.

 

<small>Wait, that would mean that I'm Jake. . .</small> Dammit!

[Zargon]

ah ha ha.....daria rocks

[Redwing]

As the oldest of nine children, I can safely say a)I don't want to have children, and b)I probably will. It's in my genes.

 

BTW, I think it's absurdly ridiculous to say that our survival as a species depends on curbing population. If humans got so overpopulated that there weren't enough natural resources to go around, the excess population would starve until the population was balanced again.

[EvilleApplePie]

Yeah but why be stupid like that, Redwing, when we can just not have so many freakin' children and save everyone alot of trouble?

[Nute Gunray]

because that ignores the fact that we are <i>animals</i>. OH WE'RE SELF-AWARE AND HAVE OPPOSABLE THUMBS!!@ We're still animals. Breeding as prolifically as possible is up there with GET FOOD IN ORDER TO CONTINUE TO LIVE.

We can adapt to survive. Many thousand years ago, there were few humans. These few humans could easily live off the land. Those few humans turned into many humans. It was no longer possible to live off the land. They developed the ability to farm. Many thousand years later, technology allowed for few farms to support vast amounts of people. Huge cities were born. Fewer and fewer farms supported more and more people. Eventually we will begin to run out of land to have our super-farms on. Will this be the end? No, because we have the ability to travel where no animal has ever thought of going: space. Vast tracts of land currently in use for grains can be converted to pasture for cattle or other livestock. Monstrous space stations will be where we grow our wheat and corn. The Mir <s>Deathtrap</s> space station was capable of growing it's own wheat; the technology is already there.

Apparently we've 'evolved' past NATURE or something and the natural methods of population control are no longer acceptable. Floods that wiped out entire populations through their direct effects and disease that followed are rendered useless by medicine and blankets airlifted in by the US and handed out by Canadian and British 'soldiers.' Wars traditional were an epic population controller, with absurd amounts of dead or displaced persons. In Russia, for example, there's an entire GENERATION missing because they were all killed in WWII. So many Poles were killed that there are serious doubts that there will be Poles in the future. Genghis Kahn killed <i>every single Persian</i>. Let's do some math. In 1945, there were 132 million Americans. There are roughly half that now. So in the last 60 some years, a given group of humans doubled. Our friends Hitler and Stalin were EPIC population controllers in a sense. Let's say they killed a combined 30 million (i'm going with estimates of 10 million for Hitler and 20 million for Stalin although I'm certain they were MUCH higher, especially in Stalin's case). If none of those people had died, there could feasibly be 60 million additional Europeans (yes Europe, Russia IS Europe too even though you don't let them in your little EU treehouse). But Mr Nute, you say, 60 million people is NOTHING compared to our 6.1 billion gomers running around. But it's 60 million EUROPEANS, who consume quite a bit of resources. Total WWII casualties, civil and military, game to roughly 50.427 million (the numbers I had seemed rounded off to the nearest thousand. Final number is +/- 2 million due to sketchy numbers from China). Had WWII not occured the world population would be closer to 6.3 or even 6.4 billion. China would be suffering from roughly 20 million more people, which they most certainly would have to 'deal' with in some way. Mao and Pol Pot and all our African genocide mongers did their ruthless nasty part too. Perhaps Mao would have deatl with the 20 million addition people before they actually became 20 million...

Americans breeding will have little impact on the world. Assume I figure out how to have children and have two little versions of myself running around. Someday I will die and the female I bred with will too That leaves us with a net gain of 0 humans. Starving Africans having children wont' change the world population much. Assume a pair of, say, Sudanis have five children. One dies shortly after birth, one starves several years later, and (just to mix it up) one is killed by a forgotten land mine. Eventually the parents die too from whatever. Population gain: 0.

In short, I think it's stupid to limit my breeding because we just MIGHT run into a little bit of snag down the road AND our current child production only places us at gain and loss of zero. Also apparently no one wants to get their hands dirty with the proven ways to 'cull the herd.' Earthquake here, volcano there, a little flooding, and a major war and we're set. Interestingly the three natural methods are easily induced if we get in trouble...

[Hel-ter]

actually I'm a great kid. SOw hy won't mine be?

[Innror]

Interesting ideas, Nute, however i think there's a flaw in your argument . We may someday be able to grow food in space, but it probably will only be a few nations who can afford it. the poor countries, who are also the ones with the largest population growth, will most likely not have access to this kind of technology. But i hope they will

[Guest milkshake]

Nute, I like you, AND SO WOULD MY DAD!

 

We could have a western facist meeting

[Admiral Odin]

But then those poor countries will strave themselves so the population will go nowhere.

 

Don't forget conlonizing the moon, or even mars to get even more food.

 

How Nute will take over the world:Breeding.

 

Step 1:

Nute will have children, those children will be indoctrinated

 

Step 2:

Those Children after having been brainwashed will have children of their own who will then be indoctrinated. This will continue for many years

 

Step 3:

Nute clones himself and with his huge family takes over the planet.

[Nitro]

Speaking of kids, I just got word that my cousin's pregnant with her first!

 

BEER'S ON NINER!!!!!!

[Guest milkshake]

Got Vodka?

[Zargon]

you are forgetting one thing Innror, between the USA and Canada, we produce ~90-95% of the worlds grain, so they aren/t making it now, they don't really need to be able to grow it in space......

[Innror]

you produce 95% of the world's grain? that sounds like an exaggeration, but since i don't know the numbers, i'll accept that . However that isn't saying that the poor countries can afford US grain. They might, i honestly don't know

[Nute Gunray]

the US accounts for somewhere around half of all the wheat grown, with canada very close behind. the number 3 producer is still Russia and they've got like 10 percent.

Oil and rice are virtually the only two things the US doesn't produce more than anyone else.

[Zargon]