Anonymous Mom, No Dads, + 14

[Aliantha]

I didn't say the world wasn't overpopulated. I told you about a program that was put in place here by our previous government. I don't necessarily agree with it on the surface, but the reason was because of a declining birthrate in this country. Down to way less than two kids per couple.

It comes down to long term productivity. If we have industries which require a certain number of staff, and then 10 or 20 years down the track there simply aren't any people to work the jobs, then where does that leave us?

[HungLikeJesus]

If there aren't many people to run the factory, there probably aren't many people to buy whatever the factory produces. It should balance out.

[Aliantha]

Well that would seem ok on the surface, but to compete on the world stage, our economy must grow, so we must produce more and more, not less or just the same.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by HungLikeJesus

If there aren't many people to run the factory, there probably aren't many people to buy whatever the factory produces. It should balance out.

Doesn't work for things like, say, nursing or food preparation. There aren't enough young people to do the labor, but plenty left who need to eat and be taken care of.

[HungLikeJesus]

That's a temporary situation.

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

...There aren't enough young people to do the labor, but plenty left who need to eat and be taken care of.

Soylent Green.

Fixed.

[Pie]

The Japanese answer is robotics.

But then, they'll all rise up and kill us all anyway.



(The robots, not the Japanese.)

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I didn't say the world wasn't overpopulated. I told you about a program that was put in place here by our previous government. I don't necessarily agree with it on the surface, but the reason was because of a declining birthrate in this country. Down to way less than two kids per couple.

It comes down to long term productivity. If we have industries which require a certain number of staff, and then 10 or 20 years down the track there simply aren't any people to work the jobs, then where does that leave us?

I was responding to both you and Dana. Dana said the world wasn't overpopulated. Sorry for the confusion.

Yes, I was just saying I believe we have flawed thinking when it comes to growth. That's all. It's just my opinion. It doesn't necessarily mean I'm right. I just think I am.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Well, I understand what you're saying, but I respectfully disagree that the world is not overpopulated. And I would say your example proves my point.

There are two methods to solve this problem. Lower the population or raised the population limit. While in my opinion both methods should be used to a point, I strongly believe the emphasis should be put on raising the population limit through more efficient methods or producing food, energy, water, etc. This will not only positively effect the population problem, but in multiple other sectors as well.

Originally Posted by sugarpop

If we lived in a more equitable society/world, then there would be money enough for all the elders. Also, I firmly believe in the village mentality. (You know, Hillary Clinton's remark when she was First Lady that it takes a village to raise a child. I think it also takes a village to care for an elder.) If people weren't so self-centered and selfish and they looked out for one another, like they do in villages, we wouldn't have that problem. So rather than seeing it as a numbers thing, I see it as a human defect thing. It shouldn't only be family looking out for family, it should be the human race looking out for each other.

I agree with this completely but you are talking about changing the entire culture of Western society.

[sugarpop]

Yes, well, I think western society is severely flawed. Or maybe I should say, western mentality.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

There are two methods to solve this problem. Lower the population or raised the population limit. While in my opinion both methods should be used to a point, I strongly believe the emphasis should be put on raising the population limit through more efficient methods or producing food, energy, water, etc. This will not only positively effect the population problem, but in multiple other sectors as well.

I don't understand what you mean by 'raise the population limit.' Would you elaborate please? Thanks bunches.

[DanaC]

The things that limit population (or rather limit a population's ability to comfortably exist) are environmental: food, space, etc. Space is flexible, look at high rise cities. Food is also a flexible variable, we can produce food at varying levels of intensity.

[sugarpop]

Thanks Dana for that explanation. But I would argue, just because we can build upwards to accomodate more people doesn't mean we should. I believe people have gotten more rude, less attentive to their surroundings, more hostile, less tolerant, and those characterisitics, when living in close quarters with millions of people, are not good combinations. You know, if our humanity wasn't slipping away, and people were concerned with one another, and greed wasn't so rampant, and we actually DID create a world that was able to accomodate everyone comfortably, then I wouldn't be so opposed to having such a high population. But things aren't like that. There is so much poverty and misery in the world, and the world is becoming so toxic, it is getting unbearable.

[DanaC]

Sugar you could rework that post and change a couple of words and you'd have something that could have been written in the late 19th century. The same anxieties, the same cultural pessimism.

Our humanity isn't slipping away. We are our humanity, our humanity is us. There has not been some golden age when all was fair and people cared. People care and people do not care. The world is fair and it is unfair. This is how it has always been. We play politics to try and change things and we have changed things. We continue to change things. BUt at the same time things stay very much the same. The actors change, the technology alters. But there will always be Romes andthere will always be Carthages

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Sugar you could rework that post and change a couple of words and you'd have something that could have been written in the late 19th century. The same anxieties, the same cultural pessimism.

And in the 18th century and the 17th century and the 16th century... ad infinitum.

Less people or more people, you either look after eachother or you don't. Some American Dwellars have previously decried our society as fascist or socialist because of the amount of money people have to contribute when they are working. But through tax and National Insurance, we do look after our own. My Grandad (80s, with Parkinsons) gets a lot of help. But Mum is there checking on him, making sure he gets everything he needs, shopping, cleaning, doing his washing etc. Even in this society I worry that he would be in a bad position if it wasn't for Mum (except that my Dad, my sister and I would step up to to the mark).

I doubt many Western societies have it exactly right. The Indian sub-continent seem to, as does traditional China and Japan - less so as they ape Western "ideals".

Look after your old people. Look after your family. Don't fuck about without contraception unless you can afford to support children.

It'll swing around again.