Bitcoin Forum

As an inhabitant of the Earth, I hereby ask my fellow Humans of the Earth to consider stopping having kids.

Here's why:

1. The world population keeps growing
1950: 2.5 billion people
2011: 7 billion people
And it's not going to stop (the world population is estimated to reach 9 billion by 2050)

2. We are already too many
A non-negligible portion of the world population lacks access to adequate housing, basic sanitation, or even food and clean water.
How about improving the condition of existing humans, before thinking about creating new ones (who will consume resources)?

Not to mention our impact on the environment (global warming, pollution, extinguished species, shrinking forests...)

Here's a pretty informative image:
http://www.upack.com/images/info/population600.jpg

Now, even if you don't think there are too many of us, you can probably agree that there are enough of us.

3. Having 2 kids is too much right now
In the long term, if every couple has 2 children, there will be no population growth.
However in the short term (next few decades), due to population momentum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_momentum), and increasing life expectancy, having 2 kids (or even 1) is going to increase the population size.
For example, China has a fertility rate of 1.5, but isn't expected to reach zero population growth before 2030.

Also, remember that raising kids:
- is expensive
- will eat up most of your free time
- will increase your impact on the environment.


So, please:
- use contraception
- if you really want to raise a child, consider adopting one.


See also:
- The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (http://www.vhemt.org/) (very rational).
- The Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/) (Sense of humor required)

down with the catholic church! >.>

Yes it is, because people DO use contraception.  The current increase is basically only due to demographic inertia.

Population increases not because of to many newborn children, but rather because of not enough old people dying.  Decreasing fertiliy even more would barely solve any problem, and bring others (putting humanity on the brink of extinction)

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

I guess you wouldn't be saying "please stop having children" to Satoshi's parents, now would you ?

Low fertility rate is precisely what has led western civilization to its current state of ENOURMOUS unfunded future liabilities (the older folks, who the working class will not be able to fund).

Moderately high fertility leads to technological advancements, sadly for the past few centuries our technological focus has been to maximize profit even at the expense of health and enviroment, i think we are at a point where ppl will have some more respect for enviroment.

I believe people should have more children, not less. If you believe that the planet can't handle more people, do the planet a favour: kill yourself.

I shouldn't have kids, because people in Africa procreate too fast? ::)

The lower the general fertility rate, the longer it'll be before I can live in a city on Mars...boooo!!

Of course, I would. Especially considering Satoshi is already born.

That wouldn't be very efficient.
By killing myself right now, it would remove only 1 individual from the Earth population (and I would be quickly replaced by dozens of newborns in the following seconds).
By helping a few people realize that breeding like rabbits isn't sustainable, I might help them to avoid adding several individuals to the world population.

Also, check out what the VHEMT has to say about suicide: http://www.vhemt.org/death.htm#killself
DISCLAIMER: I am not affiliated with the VHEMT, and I don't think we should go as far as letting our species die. I'd rather see Humanity achieve sustainability. Either way, we have to stop increasing our population size.

Don't worry, this century we'll reach a point where total human population will start to decrease.

In the long run life on Earth isn't sustainable anyway, with humans or not.

try surviving while the sun is rapidly boiling off the oceans in a few billion years :O

probably good reason to kill them All ... with Fire !!!! mwhahahaha !![Evil laugh]
and have kids then -)

I suggest that the OP should commit suicide if he does like human existence.

Market forces ought to care for all of us as long as there aren't power-hungry fools in the way, trying to manage it all.

In addition, the more people there are, the more Bitcoin users and more money in my pocket. I'm all for more people when it comes to my selfish desires, hahaha.

+1  ;)

But... Every Sperm Is Sacred.
 (http://"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-L3JMk7C1A")

No. You should have fewer kids because everybody procreates too fast. African people should do the same. Did the OP exclude Africans from the plea? Why do you think you are the only one being addressed? For some people It's always, 'what's in it for me or why should I do it' instead of the benefit of the whole human race. The environment doesn't know about man made geographical boundaries or national politics. Two wrongs don't make a right. Nor do two problems make a solution. Think globally; act locally. Africans aren't typically the ones driving SUV's to the shop for a carton of milk anyhow.

I agree whole heartedly with the OP. Although I wouldn't want the human race to go extinct to save the 'bristle nosed pig weasel', we have to plan for sustainable population and uncontrolled population growth is no more sustainable, than uncontrolled printing and lending of money. And there's no point arguing about how the working class can support an aging population either; you can't dig yourself out of a hole. Stability in some systems, is a zero sum game. Eventually somebody has to pay the piper.

If you love humanity so much, save it yourself. You can't force anyone into this game.

also, it saddens me to think about it this way, but africa isnt going to have much of a population problem if we don't find a cure for aids soon. It is an epidemic so vast and painful...

more aptly it is india and china which have the major overpopulation problems, as well as mexico.

Also for some of the folks, overpopulation isnt a judgement of person per land, its person per resource. In america the resource isnt land, but food, shelter, water and electricity.

America has overpopulation in the sense that we have far too many folks below the poverty line. Our society and economy cannot give them room to grow and survive comfortably.

So yes, stop having children, or increase the infrastructure enough to support all of these kids. But instead we have people wanting to have more kids and cut back on spending to support them. Killing our schools, for instance, is the worst possible thing america can do right now, and in almost every single state, it is being done.

Welcome to natural selection. It's not like that continent was salvegeable anyways. We will see less suffering if they all die rather than continuing to put tribes on painful life support.

That's when we see problems: when resources are viewed as something that can be rationed by some benevolent king.

Yep, these people need to have iPhone 4s and a Lexus to be comfortable. It's a completely intangible goal. Also, believe it or not, the world's 'impoverished' are the happiest. Both of my parents were part of this 'poverty-stricken' group. The whole thing is a crock of shit.



Nah, these funding cuts are actually superb. They give the public sector a boost of efficiency it so lacking. I've seen first-hand the worthless jobs these school's are getting rid of (mother is a teacher). Gifted-and-Talented coordinator? Psh, you mean that lady that hands a more rigorous set of busy-work everyday? Yeah, she was such a godsend for our children. It's not a matter of life-and-death. It's petty whims and desires.

Pretty sure I see this a lot. At least the welfare cases. With the money they save from having all of their needs provided for or at steep discount, they can get iPhones. Just sayin.

This.

imo, bombing 3rd world is more practical solution.
and majority of countries agree. with me, US on this topic. in UN.

Dude, we get more energy from the sun in hour than the entire humanity use in one year.

If we are running out of materials, just mine those damn asteroid.

if you mean "without sarcasm", then, yes, imagination is only limit for mankind size.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjsikRTIX28

Yes, solar energy is probably the future of energy (and that's a good thing).

But, how do you mine an asteroid?
And, do asteroids provide clean water, food, waste disposal... ?

Use your imagination. Asteroids could provide portal conducive material.

europa, commets, and the moon can provide water. Space based hydroponics platforms can provide food, with very regulated growing schedules, facing the dome toward the sun as needed. never a drout never a storm, no unwanted insects, no forign bacteria, carefully engineered plants to produce the best possible fruits. :P its possible, even with our current level of technology.

1) Overpopulation in not determinated by numbers, but resources, and how we manage and distribute them.
2) In fact, in the ancient and middle ages, there was overpopulation (that caused poverty and hunger), BUT had 90% fewer people than today. It is not about numbers. This had changed a lot, and we are a lot more.
3) You can say that poverty exists because of overpopulation, but in terms of percentile, there is less poverty today than ever before in our history.
4) Population growth is a proof of abundance, blessing, fertility... signals that we are ok. Our age is not perfect, but we live better than in the past, even with a lot more people.
5) The population is stabilizing. When we conquer space, we can grow even more.
6) Essential natural resources of the earth for human beings are renewable. They do not end so easily.
7) Earth and its resources are limitated, but Universe is infinite.
8) Population growth motivates us to create ecological energy resources.
9) Somes countries DO have overpopulation, but are not about resources, but political and economical issues.

More information: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZVOU5bfHrM


Yes, they can provide it and more. In fact, they are the "raw material" of earth. Water  is very common compound in space, specially in comets and moons. There's a lot of minerals, ferric material, and more! in space. They can provide  that is escential to cultivate tissues that we can eat.

Nature destroys itself. We're just a scratch to it, compared to NATURAL desasters.

It is curious that people who hate humanity does not begin extinguishing themselves. Pure hypocrisy.

Think about it.

It's true that overpopulation isn't determined by numbers, but resources.
However, according to the Global Footprint Network (http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/world_footprint/), we are currently using the equivalent of 1.5 earths.

Also, nobody said anything about hating Humanity. I'm merely hoping for sustainability.

Do you value sustainability more than human life?

do I value one human life more than extinction of the human race?

that is the true question here.. and no one is talking about murdering people, simply not having as many children. So no harm is done to the lives that exist, but for our next generation, may it be far smaller than the current, they will have a better world.

Failure to kill yourself properly is a CRIME!!! ;)


SUICIDE: A Civil Right

by Lawrence Stevens, J.D.


Thinking about suicide is commonplace.  In his book Suicide, published in 1988, Earl A. Grollman says "Almost everybody at one time or another contemplates suicide" (Second Edition, Beacon Press, p. 2).  In his book Suicide: The Forever Decision, published in 1987, psychologist Paul G. Quinnett, Ph.D., says "Research has shown that a substantial majority of people have considered suicide at one time in their lives, and I mean considered it seriously" (Continuum, p. 12).  Nevertheless, thinking about suicide is generally speaking frowned upon and by itself is enough to result in involuntary "hospitalization" and so-called treatment in a psychiatric "hospital", particularly if the person in question thinks about suicide seriously and refuses (so-called) outpatient psychotherapy to get this thinking changed.  The fact that people are incarcerated in America for thinking and talking about suicide implies that despite what the U.S. Constitution says about free speech, and despite claims Americans often make about America being a free country, many if not most Americans do not really believe in freedom of thought and speech - in addition to rejecting an individual's right to commit suicide.
                In contrast, the assertion that people have a right to not only think about but to commit suicide has been made by many people who believe in individual freedom.  In his book Suicide in America, published in 1982, psychiatrist Herbert Hendin, M.D., says: "Partly as a response to the failure of suicide prevention, partly in reaction to commitment abuses, and perhaps mainly in the spirit of accepting anything that does not physically harm anyone else, we see suicide increasingly advocated as a fundamental human right.  Many such advocates deplore all attempts to prevent suicide as an interference with that right.  It is a position succinctly expressed by Nietzsche when he wrote, `There is a certain right by which we may deprive a man of life, but none by which we may deprive him of death.'  Taken from its social and psychological context, suicide is regarded by some purely as an issue of personal freedom"  (W. W. Norton & Co., p. 209).  In his book The Death of Psychiatry, published in 1974, psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey, M.D., said this: "It should not be possible to confine people against their wills in mental `hospitals.' ...  This implies that people have the right to kill themselves if they wish.  I believe this is so" (Chilton Book Co., p. 180).  In 1968 in his book Why Suicide?, Dr. Eustace Chesser, a psychologist, asserted: "The right to choose one's time and manner of death seems to me unassailable.  ...  In my opinion the right to die is the last and greatest human freedom" (Arrow Books, London, pp. 123 & 125).  In On Suicide, published in 1851, Arthur Schopenhauer said: "There is nothing in the world to which every man has a more unassailable title than to his own life and person" (H. L. Mencken, A New Dictionary of Quotations, Knopf, 1942, p. 1161).  In a books-on-tape audiocassette version of their book Life 101,  published in 1990, John-Roger and Peter McWilliams tell us: "The consistency of descriptions from a broad range of individuals points to the possibility that death might not be so bad.  ...  Suicide is always an option.  It is sometimes what makes life bearable.  Knowing we don't absolutely have to be here can make being here a little easier."  Suzy Szasz, a victim of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, confirms this view in her book Living With It: Why You Don't Have To Be Healthy To Be Happy after an acute flare-up of her disease during which she contemplated suicide: "As many an ancient philosopher has noted, I found the very freedom to commit suicide liberating" (Prometheus Books, 1991, p. 226).  In ancient times (circa 485-425 B.C.), Herodotus wrote: "When life is so burdensome death has become for man a sought after refuge."  In his book The Untamed Tongue, published in 1990, psychiatrist Thomas Szasz asserts: "Suicide is a fundamental human right. ...society does not have the moral right to interfere, by force, with a person's decision to commit this act" (Open Court Publishing Co., p. 250-251).
                To these statements of support for the right to commit suicide, I will add my own: In a truly free society, you own your life, and your only obligation is to respect the rights of others.  I believe everyone is entitled to be treated as the sole owner of himself or herself and of his or her own life.  Accordingly, I think a person who commits suicide is well within his or her rights in doing so provided he or she does so privately and without jeopardizing the physical safety of others.  Family members, police officers, judges, and "therapists" who interfere with a person's decision to end his or her own life are violating that person's human rights.  The often expressed view that the possibility of suicide justifies psychiatric treatment even if it must be imposed against the will of the potentially suicidal person is wrong.  Provided the person in question is not violating the rights of others, that person's autonomy is of more value than enforcement of what other people consider rational or of what other people think is in a person's best interests.  In a free society where self-ownership is recognized, "dangerousness to oneself" is irrelevant.  In the words of the title of a movie starring Richard Dreyfuss: "Whose Life Is It, Anyway?"  The greatest human right is the right of self-ownership, one aspect of which is the right to life, but another aspect of which is the right to end one's own life.  Whether or not a person supports the right to commit suicide is a litmus test of whether or not that person truly believes in self-ownership and the individual freedom that comes with it, the individual freedom that many of us have been taught is the reason-for-being of American democracy.
                One reason some oppose the right to commit suicide is theological belief that is sometimes expressed this way: "God gave you life, and only God has the right to take life from you."  Using this reasoning to justify interfering with a person's right to commit suicide is imposing religious beliefs on people who may not share those beliefs.  In America where we supposedly have freedom of (and from) religion, this is wrong.
                Another reason some people believe it is ethical to interfere with a person's right to think about or commit suicide is belief in mental illness.  But a so-called diagnosis of "mental illness" is a value judgment about a person's thinking or behavior, not a diagnosis of bona-fide brain disease.  So-called mental illness does not deprive people of free will, but on the contrary is an expression of free will (which reaps the disapproval of others).  Those who say mental illness destroys "meaningful" free will or who call the beliefs of others irrational (and therefore necessarily caused by mental illness) are accepting the idea of mental illness as brain disease without adequate evidence or are refusing to accept the beliefs of others only because they differ from their own.
                Sometimes people oppose the right to commit suicide because of belief in a sort of entirely non-biological mental illness.  The error of this way of thinking is that without a biological abnormality the only possible defining characteristic of mental illness is disapproval of some aspect of a person's mentality or thinking.  But in a free society, it shouldn't matter if the thinking of a person meets with the disapproval of others, provided the person's actions do not violate the rights of others.
                Furthermore, there isn't any good evidence that mental illness by any generally accepted definition is usually involved in a person's decision to commit suicide.  In her book about teenage suicide, Marion Crook, B.Sc.N., says "teens considering suicide are not necessarily mentally disturbed.  In fact, they are rarely mentally disturbed" (Every Parent's Guide To Understanding Teenagers & Suicide, Int'l Self-Counsel Press Ltd., Vancouver, 1988, p. 10).  Psychologist Paul G. Quinnett, Ph.D., makes this observation in his book Suicide: The Forever Decision:  "As we have already discussed, however, you do not have to be mentally ill to take your own life.  In fact, most people who do commit suicide are not legally `insane.'  So it seems we have a very interesting problem.  To prevent you from killing yourself, doctors like myself will stand up in court and say something to the effect that, by reason of a mental illness, you are a danger to yourself and need treatment.  But - and this is the weird part - you may, in a matter of a few hours to a couple of days, get up one morning and say, `I've decided not to kill myself, after all.'  And if you can convince us you mean what you say, you can leave the hospital and go home.  Question: Are you now completely cured of your so-called mental illness? Obviously not, since the chances are you were never `mentally ill' in the first place.  ...  As I have said, I do not believe you have to be mentally ill to think about suicide" (pp. 11-12).  Dr. Quinnett's statement is a clear admission that allegations of mental illness to justify incarcerating suicidal people often are deliberate dishonesty, even by the definition of mental illness that exists in the minds of the professionals who make the allegations of mental illness.  They make these allegations of mental illness even though they know they are false because involuntary psychiatric commitment laws require a finding of "mental illness" before involuntary commitment may take place.  Making deliberately false accusations of "mental illness" under oath in a court of law to satisfy commitment laws for the purpose of discouraging suicidal thinking or preventing suicide is a way to avoid coming to terms with the fact that incarcerating people only because they happen to think their lives are not worth living or because they have attempted to end their own lives is a form of authoritarianism and despotism.  In the case of people who have only thought about (not attempted) suicide, it is imprisonment for mere thought-crime similar to that illustrated by George Orwell in his novel 1984.
                Even people who oppose the right to commit suicide because of their belief in mental illness sometimes can be made to understand the erroneousness of their biological theorizing or their belief in some kind of non-biological mental illness by asking them if they would see any point in living if they were suffering from a terminal disease involving excruciating, unrelievable physical pain or were completely paralyzed from the neck down with no chance of recovery.  Once people admit there are any circumstances in which they would choose death, they often see suicide is the result of a person's personal judgment about his or her circumstances in life rather than a biological malfunction of the brain or some conception of non-biological mental illness.
                Some may feel it is right to use force to prevent suicide because of their belief that the potentially suicidal person's desire to die is probably temporary and will probably go away or subside if he or she is forced to live a short time longer until the acute emotional reaction to a recent traumatic event has faded with time.  Those advancing this argument sometimes acknowledge a person does have a right to commit suicide if he or she is not acting impulsively.  But most evidence indicates few if any people who commit suicide do so impulsively.  As Earl A. Grollman says in his book Suicide (in which he opposes the right to commit suicide): "Suicide does not occur suddenly, impulsively, unpredictably" (p. 63).  In his book Suicide: The Forever Decision, psychologist Paul G. Quinnett, Ph.D., says: "I have talked to hundreds of suicidal people...  If I can make another guess about what has been going on inside your head and heart, it is that you have had long and difficult discussions with yourself about whether to live or die" (pp. 18-19).  Rather than being impulsive, suicide is something people do after long contemplation as part of their efforts to deal with what they consider intolerable life circumstances.
                The usual justification for involuntary incarceration and so-called treatment of those considering or attempting suicide is alleged dangerousness to oneself.  But even people who don't agree with the principle of self-ownership should ask themselves: dangerousness to oneself in the eyes of whom?  To an onlooker, suicide may seem to always be harmful to the person ending his or her life.  But that's not how the person committing suicide sees the situation.  People commit suicide because they decide continued living in their particular circumstances is a greater harm to themselves than death.  This is made abundantly clear by Francis Lear, editor-in-chief if Lear's magazine, in her autobiographical book, The Second Seduction: "I ALWAYS HAVE an `exitline.'  A stash of lithium.  A building tall enough to kill, not maim, for godsake, not maim.  One goes out in suicide, one simply goes out, gets out, wriggles, bolts, and does not some back merely smashed up or, as the first priority, left with the ability to feel.  One does not go out in a half-assed manner.  Suicide has many consequences.  It will hurt people who love you, it can splatter the sidewalks; but its purpose, the reason for its magnetism, is that it is the only guaranteed, surefire way to end, blitz, detonate a critical mass of suffering.  Suicide, reduced to its pure essence, is a delivery system that moves us from pain to the absence of pain.  If the gods contrive against us and the planets are in disarray, if the earth cracks open beneath us, we must always have a way out" (Harper-Perennial, 1992, p. 26).  As Dr. Eustace Chesser said, "Suicide is a deliberate refusal to accept the only conditions on which it is possible to go on living" (Why Suicide?, op. cit., p. 122).
                A person's reasons for choosing death may or may not make sense to other people.  In a free society, however, that doesn't or at least shouldn't matter.  It is a very personal and subjective determination, so how can anyone else reasonably claim to know that a suicidal person is making the "wrong" decision in terms of "dangerousness to himself" or herself as experienced by that person? As William Glasser, a psychiatrist, says in his book Positive Addiction: "we should keep in mind that we can never feel another person's pain" (Harper & Row, 1976, p. 8).  In general, I agree with psychiatrist Mark S. Gold's assertion that "suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem" (The Good News About Depression, Bantam Books, 1986, p. 290).  However, the determination of whether it is best to suffer through a miserable present in the hope of getting to a possibly better future is a value judgment.  A person could legitimately decide a hopefully better future does not justify choosing to experience an unbearable present.  No one should claim the right override, by force, a person's value judgements and decisions about something as personal as this.
                Another factor to consider is that mental health professionals, contrary to their claim that they are preventing suicide, more often are unwittingly promoting eventual suicide.  In an article in the May-June 1974 New York University Law Review titled "Involuntary Psychiatric Commitments to Prevent Suicide", New York University sociology professor David F. Greenberg, Ph.D., says studies on psychiatric suicide prevention "have been either inconsistent or negative" and suggest "that institutionalization may not prevent suicide, but, in fact, may result in more suicides" (p. 256, emphasis in original).  Considering the harmfulness of today's biological "treatments" in psychiatry, the dreariness and sometimes cruelty of institutional life, and the effects of psychiatric stigma, such as lowered self-esteem and discrimination in education and employment, increased rates of suicide among suicidal people who get psychiatric "treatment" compared with a similar population of suicidal people who do not get "treatment" should be expected.  The value of recognizing the right to commit suicide is not only respecting individual freedom but preventing the harm and cruelty that often go on in the name of suicide prevention.
                While courts have gone both ways in right-to-die cases, judicial decisions defending the right to die are not unusual and are gaining favor.  In his book Death With Dignity, published in 1989, attorney Robert L. Risley points out that in general "court cases clearly established the right to bodily integrity, confirming that the basic right of self-determination includes the right to die, and that it overrides the state's duty to preserve life" (Hemlock Society, Eugene, Oregon, 1989, p. viii).
                The U.S. Supreme Court addressed the question of whether the U.S. Constitution protects the right to die in 1990 in the case of Cruzan v. Missouri, 497 U.S. 261.  In the words of Time magazine, in this case the U.S. Supreme Court "declared for the first time that there is indeed a right to die" (July 9, 1990, p. 59).  Of the nine justices, all except Justice Scalia acknowledged the right to die is a federal constitutional right.  In his concurring opinion, Justice Scalia argued vigorously against the reasoning of the majority and dissenting opinions, both of which acknowledged the right of self-determination is a constitutional right and that it includes the right to die.  Justice Scalia opposed the view of the other eight justices, arguing vigorously against what he called the right to commit suicide.  But in this respect he stood alone on the Court.
                Since the rationale of these cases is that people have a right of self-determination that includes the right to die, they support my assertion that suicide is a civil right even though, at present, the right to die has been upheld only in cases involving physically ill or disabled people who are conscious enough to express their desire to die or who when healthy enough to express an opinion indicated death is what he or she would want in the circumstances.  In fact, this justification is probably in many cases a mere excuse or rationalization to cover up the real reason.  If the sole reason for permitting death was the desire of the ill or disabled person, involuntary psychiatric commitment of suicidal people would not take place.  A bona-fide but unacknowledged reason ill or disabled people are allowed to deliberately end their lives is they have become a burden to other people.  In other words, just as able-bodied suicidal people are incarcerated for their own supposed benefit (to prevent them from committing suicide) when the real reason is selfish concerns of others, people with severe, permanent disability or incurable disease are allowed to die for their own supposed benefit when a real but unacknowledged purpose is to relieve others ("society") of the burden of caring for them.  However, the reasoning of judicial opinions upholding the right to die emphasize personal autonomy and self-determination as the basis for the decision and therefore support my opinion that each person is the sole owner of himself or herself, of his or her own body, and of his or her own life.  They support my opinion that the right to commit suicide is a civil right.
                If you are a legislator who supports the right of self-ownership you should introduce legislation to delete references to "dangerousness to oneself" in your state's psychiatric commitment laws.  If you are a judge deciding questions of constitutional law, you should strike down as unconstitutional laws that imprison ("hospitalize") people only for supposed dangerousness or harm to oneself.  Whoever you are, you should respect the autonomy of all of your fellow men and women whose conduct does not unlawfully harm others.

THE AUTHOR, Lawrence Stevens, is a lawyer whose practice has included representing psychiatric "patients".  His pamphlets are not copyrighted.  You are free to make copies for distribution to those you think will benefit.

I see you dont hate humanity, but many people how commented here use that excuse to do it. ;-)

I think that the Global Footprint Network is correct, but genetic advances are making crops highly efficient.

Do you consider that to be an inevitable trade off?

The trade off I am more inclined to be concerned about, is quality of life vs quantity. That is the message I got from the OP and nothing about it suggested hating humanity IMHO.

There are two directions that a population can take towards declining quality of life (or even extinction). Choosing to breed uncontrollably or not at all, tend towards the same result. Sustainability would be achieving some balance between the two extremes.

that's main point of discussion about humanity in lower classes.
higher ones already agreed/concluded/planned/plotted about growth suppresstion/gayification/genocide[in variations]and etc to retain their level of comfort they addicted and protit margin they pleased to see.
instead of focus more on building more social society.
with human[not machine]face.
like, for example, indians-made.

um... what?

Overpopulation and global warming is bullshit  ::)

humanity is overrated.
and redundant.

yeah, who needs air water and food, totally overrated! owning gold will save us from the evil environmentalists!

[another nonsensical post.]

Market forces can easily care for the environment if you let them work. We don't need a universal carbon credits system shoved down our throats -- when it doesn't even work! -- because BP likes putting dollars down Obama's pocket!

"market forces" sounds like "Jedi forces" when you use it.
or "forces of nature" :P

I am only reminded of the intro to the movie "Idiocracy". If I don't breed, 2 dozen hillbillies will outbreed me and then where will the world be?? I have to breed just to make sure we don't go extinct!!!

... I agree though, we should all grow patio gardens. the food would actually have nutritional value and not be 90% corn by-products.

^^  This.  :)

Stormtrooper, in my opinion the best way to lower the birth rate without imposing draconian birth laws on people (like China does) would be to raise standards of living significantly as it has been shown that higher standards of living decrease birth rates.  The best way to raise standards of living, of course, is through capitalism. 

[This is when Father McGruder shows up to argue with me.]

right.
humanity is like cancer on planet surface.

for a second i thought i was on a bilderberg forum, but after that i saw the bitcoin.org address...
maybe if op's parents would have used a condom, we wouldn't be reading this topic and would have not wasted 60 precious seconds.
</crap topic>

That movie seems no possible, since IQ average increases every decade.

However, idiots and dumb people use to believe they are more intelligent than others.

This is a popular meme lately but it's probably not that simple.  Correlation is not causation.

Lower birth rates are correlated with things like education for young women and accessible healthcare, not necessarily capitalism.

Don't insult cancer.  Its creation is really more interesting than the formation of its host.

In all seriousness, Malthusian predictions come around all the time.  Unsurprisingly they often fail to to materialize.  Humans have made great progress in the engineering of new strains of various foodstuffs and the development of techniques that make their collection more efficient.  Don't tell the green freaks this, but humans have been making GE food for thousands of years.  We will continue this process. 

Further name one organism that grows logarithmically indefinitely?  Bacteria come close in a sterile medium but they are limited by culture size.  Throw some phage in and the curve is radically different.  Human generation time is radically slower.  A single E. coli cell could spawn 2^1281600 offspring in the average human lifespan of 75 years (I know this value varies).  As unPC as it is to admit, human growth is checked by these same factors.  Remember the SARS outbreak?  It would have been unlikely to have occurred in the Wyoming for example.  As population density increases, so will the likelihood of disease transmission, especially for one rising zoonotically.  The question is not will a big outbreak happen, but when?

HAaaa


IMO suicide should be a basic human right because, let's face it no one wants to live on a planet full of jerks garbage and radioactive waste. Fapping themselves to sleep every night while the people causing the serious, widespread, immediately life threatening problems that affect the entire planet's population get to fly around in aeroplanes. Fucking up the atmosphere even more. That's just downright lame.

In other words if you'd like to escape this shit hole via suicide you deserve a voice in the matter. Instead of being force fed a steady stream of propaganda by family members, social media platforms, and educators [spiritual or otherwise].

On the other hand I don't think you should kill yourself just because we have a burgeoning population and some people told you to do so on the internet.

Also I can confirm, lower birth rates have been correlated to education for women.

So if you really want Africa to stop producing lots of kids, stabilizing the continent, stopping the rape, and setting up schools and hospitals like our Multinational corporation have been promising we'd do for generations now, would be a top priority. Seeing as you don't care, Basiley, and would like to pick more fights we can't win I suggest you stfu

Natural desasters are worst than human disasters: huracans an tsunamis cause deforestation, for example. Humans can restore nature faster than nature alone, as well. Humans can bring to life extincts species, even spicies that have been stinct by natural disasters.

Idiots think that stupid people have to commit suicide/ Pure hypocresy.

This is not a problem. It is known that when a population becomes wealthy then the birth rate drops by itself (even below self-sustaining levels).

I present to you:

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

http://www.vhemt.org/ (http://www.vhemt.org/)

Oh christ.

Really? I laughed.

tbats contradict most humans i knew, family principles/eduaction/traditions.
and also smashing/bombing/shooting other people usually works better. in both senses and in both ways.
and thats why its works EXACTLY that way in 95% cases.

If you're a total utilitarian, you shouldn't be arguing for population control.
If you're an average utilitarian, you shouldn't be arguing for population control among the well-off. (which I presume bitcoin users are)

But the point is that for long term sustainability, there needs to be some kind of population control in place. In abesence of that, the meme-complexes that encourage child bearing end up populating the majority of the future. These could be fundamental christians or muslims or simply thoughtless people(the idiocracy argument)

For those who think the idiocracy argument is bunk, the  average human IQ has along way to go UP before the idiocracy effect starts showing up. The increase of IQ is due to better living standards and higher birth weights as poverty reduces in China and India.
But the idiocracy effect is real. I live in India, the world's 2nd most populated country. I'm tentative about having more than 1 kid, since i worry about the cost of good school and college. My housemaid already has two kids since she doesn't look that far into the future(atleast not for college) Multiply that by 10s of milliions and multiple generations and you have idiocracy.

The need is real, but the institutions are not in place for generalised human population control. All of humanity is divided in nations that take their individual shrinking as a threat. We humans have behaved abhorably towards each other for centuries. We simply are not at that stage of civilization where we can institute population control and people will comply seeing the "logic" of it. Any general attempt to reduce numbers will be followed by a long round of finger pointing  - you first.

In this stage of human civilization, humanity is what is to be improved and the way to do that is also through humanity. Such appeals are good only for restricting the number of the well read and the  conscientious. So, you will end up restricting the people who can solve the main problem , which for  a lack of a better term, I would term - real long term world peace. And only after humanity attains real long term world peace can we sincerely attempt population control, which will not be followed by backlashes.

If we want population control right now, we need to establish institutions that will lead to peaceful global human interaction.

My favourite means of conducting population control would be tradeable child credits given to every young woman in the world. Let those who want more children buy the credits from those who don't want to have children or have other priorities in life, for which they ahve to sacrifice having children. This  would be possible only after world peace.

Because free money couldn't possibly appeal to the lower classes  ::)


I have nothing else to add ...

I've not read all of the thread, but what scares me is who is having children. It seems that the most intelligent people in society, the ones with good jobs etc. are having children at a later date, and they're having less children too. Whereas the poverty stricken African countries, and the underclass in western societies are spewing children.

Sounds a bit Nazi, but it's worrying. In the past survival of the fittest would have kicked in and only the best survived, but nowadays everyone survives and the best aren't reproducing enough.

In terms of the entire world's population, those who can afford computers with GPUs are well off.

Our issue isnt living area for multiple billions extra, it is simply food/water resources.

Well hello tomorrow, hello technology... oh shit, we have religious nuts and tree hugging hippies.

Scientific world have tried numerious times to test new concepts ie. advancing technology of desalting seawater for drinkable water(yes its doable allready, just not affordably atm) , city center agriculture/skyscraper farms(this involves having farms of pretty much any type of vegetable/fruit inside skyscrapers specificly build for it)

Most of these advances are stunt by religious nuts/hippies who believe people should either live like nature or live by the bible(what a wealth of unusable dogma anyhow)

So personally I think the world will only be able to move into a genuine sustainable future when we start thinking(yes with our brains, not our hearts) and this would most likely only happen once we have decrease or eliminated the power religions who stick their fat fingers into our current futuristic lifestyle.

I think that population control should improve, but that doesn't mean we should kill people or make abortions, but improve education. Control population is not make population to decrease, but make it sustentable.

A population decrease can be bad as well, like in Europe, which is going to be the old-people home of the world.

Planet and its animals destroy many of us (nature lovers o not) every day...  nature doesn't matters about us, it isnt good or bad, so I dont care about its health more than about the ours.

 In fact, we are part of the earth, and therefore, kill ourselves implies kill the earth.

I like people that have no kids, because they are giving space for my future ones.

tradgedy of the commons etc ....
good point. I must have been in a bad mood last night ...

lol I have one 4 year old with another due in September. Hoping child #3 will actually be child #3 AND #4 what with twins. Hoped the same thing for #2 but oh well. Yeah.... fuck you all ima overpopulating the world!

The world cannot be overpopulated, so long as private property rights are understood and enforced. Have a million children if you so wish - it will create a million new minds and productive bodies. People, in general, are not parasites on the planet. We produce more than we consume, on net, and this computer on which I type is proof of that.

Overpopulation is a non-issue. The real issue is ensuring those who are born, live in a society that respects their individual rights.

Amen. I agree with you. Respect and humans right have to be the priority; anything else will come automatically (sustentability, for example).

I like people who have kids they can't afford, because they are creating future sweat-shop workers.

If only human greed and the struggle for power didn't get in the way. I really want to do a social experiment (maybe I should look up if it's be done) that involves taking very intelligent, scientist like people and isolate them in their own society and see what develops there.

fortunately, it is not my case. :-D

People are a commodity. The more there are the less their worth.

Tragically anyone who has the understanding to be concerned with this problem is not the people who shouldn't be having kids, but those that should be.  Do you think that the people with no care or understanding of this issue have stopped having children?

Overpopulation is and will only be an issue in the eastern hemisphere were everyone is poor and stupid.

Two of the largest countries in the West: the USA and Brazil burn the consumables corn and sugar for gasoline.

OP is a total ignoramus; this appears to more about finger banging mother earth a humans are poison mentality.

Get with it folks if you don't work the government will bring in ..Mexicans and Asians to do it.

If you don't make babies the government is more than glad to bring in ..Mexicans and Asians to do it.

Don't forget the foreigners don't wait until forty something to have children either.

Might be good advice for most African countries.

Apart from that, I DISAGREE with the OP, VHEMT CoE and other morons.

In developed countries we actually need people to have MORE children.

Why?

Because the population is aging.

And?

live and let live  8)

Technology will take care of your concerns in time

1st world nations have a negative population growth(this does not include immigration, but procreation).  Any industrial nation will develop a negative poulation growth.  The Elites of the world know this.  But instead of allowing 2nd and 3rd world nations to develop and achieve this(as well as a self sufficient economy) they keep these countries in misery and enact population control protocols such as GMO and vaccine induced sterilization/elimination.  Why else do you think people in Africa run now when Western Doctors come with vaccines in hand and refuse to eat food supplied from abroad.  These people are learning.

When people start to see there are Malevolent people pulling the strings at the top they can actually start fighting back.

Anyone that subscribes to this Overpopulation Propaganga is just an intellectual slave in their Matrix.

Please have more children! We need more division of labor! The ability to specialize brings technological progress in all fields, whether science, engineering, medicine, etc. The ability to pursue a career in a field that you enjoy is only made possible by the fact that all other necessities have been taken care of for you. The Renaissance was only possible once people had free time to think.

This not true at all.  The Renaissance stemmed from people being released from the confines of a Feudal/Monarchical system of control.  In 13th century Italy, where it had it's beginnings(and spread over centuries from there) people were experiencing Political and Social freedoms.  This intellectual awakening flowed into more than just the Political and Social realms.  When people are free you will see them reach far beyond their grasp and accomplish amazing things.

The opposite it also true, as we can see around the world today where we are all being put back under the slavemasters boot.  Who can argue against the fact we are all being dumbed down worldwide by Government controlled Education.  Toss a little Flouride and Mercury laced Vaccines into the mix and you've got a nice little Labotomy for the General Population.

If everyone on Earth lived in a typical 2000 square foot home on a typical sized plot of land, we could fit the entire world population inside of Texas. Please stop claiming there are too many people. The planet is mostly empty. The issue is there isn't enough food. We need more food grown more efficiently. We also need more people! I love people! I may be biased though. Want to solve really tough problems? We need more Einsteins. How do you get more Einsteins? You grow the population to support a few more billion people. Eventually, a few of them will be exceptionally brilliant and break through these tough problems.

If you want to reduce the population, kill yourself. The fact you're still alive reading this means that even you don't believe your stupid theory.

Or clean Water.  This is ofcourse by design.  What more effective way to kill people off than starvation or thirst.  Lower the global food output by say 20%.  How many millions would this kill worldwide?  GMO crops, contaminated water.  Elites buying up what's left to reap the biggest profits ever.  They are trying to kill us and have the planet for themselves.



"The issue is there isn't enough food"

I don't think we are in disagreement here. With political/social freedom comes economic freedom. Feudal lords and monarchs stopped taking and wasting people's money/resources/labor/time. People are allowed to keep more of their money/resources, save it for emergencies/retirement, invest it in productive endeavors, etc. Savings allows for free time - to become entrepreneurs, and push the limits of our knowledge. How can you say "this is not true at all" when we are in perfect agreement?

You are putting the Cart before the Horse friend.

No, stop having children because it's idiotic.

Kids means sacrificing and compromising at least part of your dreams and goals.

But you are sacrificing your life for what? So that your kid can sacrifice her life for her kids, ad infinitum?  That's absurd.

When having kids, you are not acting in your own best interest, you are acting in your genes' best interest.  

Well guess what, your genes are not conscious or capable of reason or compassion.  They are completely "dumb" and they will discard your body as soon as they have fulfilled their primitive mission.   You are just the sucker who they need for replication.  They have no "deeper purpose" other than replication for the sake of replication.  

That's why I say: Outsmart your genes and don't waste your resources on kids,  use them to attain immortality instead (or at least life extension and human enhancement).

We're not gonna create more Einsteins by producing another billion people living in abject poverty.  Einsteins aren't born by chance. Well, at least the Einstein creation rate is very low if you just rely on chance. No, Einsteins are made.  Einsteins are created with the correct stimuli and environment.

There are just 13 million Jewish people in the world, yet they have produced almost half of all Nobel prize winners. How many Nobel prize winners came out of ethnic groups with high birth rates, that far outnumber Jewish people? Culture and education is everything, not brute force numbers.

Well perhaps the world needs more Jewish people. It's a shame they are a "by invitation only" club. Or at least the rest of the world should emulate whatever they are doing right.

In any case, scarce resources should be spent on giving fewer children a quality education, not on quantity. That way we could easily go from 1 Einstein per century to 10 Einsteins per century.

Bio 101 Species always grow in population until they surpass carrying capacity. Then they crash. Humans are just another animal and will pass "K" in our lifetime. Be ready or be eaten.

So said Malthus. There is a very important distinction - animals can't increase their "K," while humans do it in perpetuity. We MAKE our "K"... it is not a set limit.

I have to disagree. We can increase or efficiency but that will only lead to more population growth. In the end there is still a limit that can not be exceeded.

Of course animals increase their K.  Every time a cow or chicken poops out a grain seed, it increases it's carrying capacity.  But there is always a limit.

The New York Times had an interesting article about the effects of negative population growth in Germany (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/world/europe/germany-fights-population-drop.html?_r=0&pagewanted=all). Several countries in Europe, as well as Japan, are facing similar issues. The problem is that the labor force cannot expand without growth.

I think your issue is not that people should not have children, really - its more that people should understand the economic and parental responsibility of having a large family.

What is your proposing is against the view if human rights which is the right to live
This problems that we have is not because we are overpopulated,
It is because of the failures of the government and state to provide all access to live decently

Europeans should have at least 3 children per couple, because we're slowly getting replaced in our homelands by migrants.

If you could provide them a solution of who is gonna look after us when we are old and sick than it maybe would work. (consider the whole world not just the developed countries)

This problem might get sorted out sooner than you expected. These times are one of the best times imo.

the importance of using a condom..

One need to be responsible enough to take care of their kids that they bring into this world!

Yes though we gotta stop population growth, but it is practically impossible to stop having children. Because people may adopt childre but no couples wants to

Start with yourself

God's first command to mankind was, "Don't eat the fruit," (paraphrased). Mankind didn't obey, and the world fell into all kinds of turmoil, sin, pain, and death.

God's second command was, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth," (paraphrased). Only places like Bangladesh and some parts of India have done this. The rest of the world has less than 1% of the people in it that it could hold.

Then, God gave the 10 Commandments, which people didn't obey. And look at all the trouble, and wars, and fighting, and death that have come about... just because people won't obey God's commands.

Isn't it about time that we obey all of God's commands, including to fill the earth with people, so that things will go well for us?

Let's get out there and procreate as fast and as much as we can!

8)

We shouldn't just stop having them. We should plan them.

reminds me of the movie What Happens To Monday

Why would people sacrifice their coupl life demands? For restricting population bursts?

Its not only the fault of having children bit fault of awareness spreading campaigns that limits to only town sides

We should definitely beware. If we want parenthood we can adopt children

Two-fold theme. On the other hand, it's worth thinking about yourself, not about others.

I think you are right and wrong at the same flank. People may use protection to continue enjoying their life without having children

The true root of world poverty is corruption not overpopulation. If people is not motivated by self greed and worked together for a better world, even 15 billion can live plentiful and peaceful because our resources will be focused on productive endeavor instead of wars. People working together in harmony, can colonize planets centuries before earth is truly overpopulated ( about 100 billion or more ) If we have been living in cooperation with each other, there be cities in Sahara desert and oceans and under it by now. Even In ants and termite, greater number, means more power to the colony. We are just a ant colony with no other colony around. Our main competition is our evil nature.

People nowaday only think about themself. they want to have thair family bubble without think about a worlwide viable way.