Okay, so as of April, 2017, we have officially reached 7.5 BILLION people on this place we call Earth. Eventually, we're going to overpopulate and the world? Well this dump will be filled to the brim with people.
Should the world implement a system like China, where we limit reproduction to maybe 1 or 2 children per couple? And do you think we should start this now, before it gets terribly out of hand?
I only ask because this is a problem that will eventually consume us all, every one of us on Earth.
Maybe I'm tripping, but I'd like to see what the oh so fine and exquisite members of this site have in there brains about this topic.
I say we kill off bitches that's don't like being on lists.
So you want to list everybody? Finger print wise, or like Social Security wise?
Jeez Nycto What's your beef with me?!
In China, there are massive problems coming from a two child policy. The male the female ratio is screed to males, female babies are murdered or abandonded, and parents of females have a hard time living later in live (since a son-by-blood traditionally took care of the parents).
Also, orphanages often kick out the kids at 14 (ish). The girls are commonly forced into prostitution through human trafficking or "taken" by a "husband".
Higher education levels, more wealth, access to birth control, and having real sex ed are all factors that decrease reproduction without being evil.
A skewed gender ratio is great for reducing reproduction as well. It means fewer pairs to reproduce. Speaking of which, I'm always left wondering how Muslim men get wives when some of them are hoarding multiple wives.
As for education, wealth, etc., that's a product of having more resources poured into fewer children.
Horny men are still horny. Prostitution, buying wives from the Philippines, and kidnapping 14 year old orphaned girls then happen.
Also, are you aware that the United States, England, Germany, and baisically every first world country ever had massive population booms as they were industrializing (thus gaining wealth and education)?
I have simple solutions for all 3 of those scenarios. Prostitutes generally use birth control because they can't make money when they're pregnant. Philippines should impose the reproduction limit as well so it also gets a gender imbalance and thus doesn't have wives to sell. Jail the kidnapers. Most of the overpopulating countries need to step up law enforcement anyways, and people in jail can't reproduce.
In response to your second paragraph, that's because those countries didn't have reproduction limits when they were developing. By placing reproduction limits, they will become developed countries more quickly and avoid the population boom.
The Phillipines already have more males than females born. China is a lower tier on human trafficing than Afghanistan. The government there isn't doing squat.
You have no idea how countries develops do you? A country needs a large, cheap labor force during the industrial phase. Countries haven't figured out a way yet to skip that phase on a massive scale.
Well if motherfucking FEMA and 'Merica has come to your country and tried to tell you how to do it and you still can't figure it out, something's wrong.
The thing that it wrong is called the brutal subgigation of the native populations for over a hundred years.
Is it? They aren't taking care of their children, they aren't feeding their people, they aren't stopping diseases from spreading across the world. How is it so brutal to try and get these countries on the same track as the rest of the fucking world?
I say we just kill the backwards savages as a warning to the rest of the world.
That is fucking messed up.
Hmm, that may be true, but we are still growing at an exponential rate. Think of it like this; no matter what, without a limit on reproduction, eventually we will hit our carrying capacity, and we will run out of room (and food, and energy...). Prostitution is an evil, and that can definitely stopped with the power of fuck yeah America.
One woman can still have 10 babies if she desires in America, and she will consume tax dollars to pay for her children, and since they grew up in a poor enviroment, they are most likely going to stay there and repeat the process. Eventually, it will get out of control. And then what?
Are you aware that a nation's naturally born population approximately stabilizes when it becomes a wealthy developed one? The U.S. is growing in population mostly due to immigration.
Lastly, many poor nations need a high birth rate due to a high death rate. Additionally, agrarian societies need many kids to help on the farming et cetera since they nees the cheap labor. Demying that would royally screw countles poor countries even thoufh we already did so ourselves with our own populations (and turned out fine).
I'm not specifically relying on America's growth, I am speaking of the entire worlds' population. We are growing by approximately 86 million people per year; and no sign of slowing down. Our birth rate isn't decreasing, if anything, around the world, it's growing.
Places like Africa that are extremely undeveloped should be a) developed so they can get on the same page, or b) wiped out to prevent diseases and whatnot from expanding to civilization. They shouldn't even be reproducing.
Did you honestly just suggest that the "place" called Africa should simply develop as if they simply are choosing not to? That's been their goal for generations.
Did you really just have a solution that was "kill the black people"?
Did you really just say that the entire continent of Africa shouldn't be reproducing? I am astounded that the answer to all three is yes.
Okay, no. Black people are fine.
Think of all the diseases that are mixing and washing together in the uncivilized place. They shit in their own water, they can't get with the program. We've lent them funds and resources and yet they still can't get it together. It might be their goal, but they simply are not doing it. Why? Egypt can. South Africa can. Why the fuck can't the majority of Africa?
I don't advocate the genocide of these people, but they aren't exactly doing anything for Earth, except creating diseases and horrible lives for people who are unfortuanate enough to live in that squalor. Oh, and reproducing. Which just ticks up the rate at which Earth's population is growing.
Yeah... why make babies that grow up like they did? Poor? I'm sure they may have happy families and childhoods (been watching some TED talks and reading about Africa for ASL), but trying to survive? Is it too bitter for many? :(
It might stem from the fact that the Europeans raped the entire continent for about a 100 years or so.
What? 200 years ago? That was fucking two hundred years ago! We're in 2017 and we've tried to help them, and they still can't get it together.
Actually, the last African colonies were only freed in the 1970s, and apartheid was a thing up to the 1990s.
Well by those standards the Irish are absolute sloths.
But what are they doing about it? South Africa is pretty set up, modern day terms.
Okay, so you got me on that. But my point still stands as natural selection; they were savages a long, long time and barely had civilization by the time Europe took over. I'd have figured they were doing them a favor.
Yeah but it was basically a white supremacist state up until recently. They haven't had much time to do much.
I believe that last Sundown Law, forbidding black people from being out after sundown, was repealed 2010-ish area. And if I remember correctly, just earlier this month, a few white teenagers tried to lynch a 8 year old biracial boy after throwing racial slurs at him, letting him swing a few times by the neck before he got himself down.
So not all have exactly 'tried to help them'.
I'm NOT advocating racism and shit like this happening! Racism is bad, I don't know how this is even a viable response to my point.
I'm saying that they need to get with the program. They have received help from FEMA and America, and yet they still shit in their own water (even after being advised that, you know, this isn't such a good idea, guys). This doesn't have anything to do with racism, it has everything to do with their living conditions not being viable.
You suggesting Africans shouldn't have babies is pretty fucking racist, you'd have to be a moron not to see it. You're not a moron, are you?
I'm suggesting anybody with horrible living conditions shouldn't have babies. Single mothers with no source of income, homeless, etc. Anybody that can not care for their baby shoudn't bring them into the world. It's not a race thing. I care about the babies being brought in this world to live in these horrible conditions.
Okay, well that makes you a classist then. Only rich people should have babies, got it.
Well as a kid that grew up in an extremely poor environment, yeah, I'd advocate only financially stable people from reproducing.
Maybe it would help solve the problem at hand, the population one, and lower crime rate.
You're going to be on so many lists when the revolution finally happens.
I don't quite understand this, but sure.
Then morons would be killing morons.
Well, shit. Guess it's time for me to commit suicide then, if we're killing morons.
And yet, this a true statement. Except, for you know, killing them.
I think reproduction is fine... But Africa on a global competitive level on things that matter in advancement of humans (in a technological way)... isn't there. How can we help low-income countries get effective education/blahblahblah? And what about nations where having lots of babies is part of their culture? I'd say to limit anyway, but some might find that morally incorrect. :/
I'd say adhering to religion in terms of a global problem would be quite bias. Everybody that wanted to have a ton of kids would just claim that religion. No, if nobody can have babies, then that means NOBODY has babies.
Sterilize? Actually sounds like a good idea if you want the human race to, you know, still exist in a couple of hundred years in the same state it is now.
And we can already see what immigrants from the middle east are doing to the UK. There's been FIVE successful terrorist attacks in Britain this year alone. That's certaintly not the solution. Extremists are a big no-no.
Carpet bombing is to extreme. We should just stop the babies from being born, I'm not advocating genocide.
Again, not advocating genocide.
Advocating stopping our WORLD from becoming overpopulated.
Can we just fucking gas the crackers yet? I'm tired of you pasty ass cumskins opening starbuckeses in my neighbourhood
Stopping people from being born would be a better choice than murdering millions of people.
Those issues aren't related to the two child policy in any way. Not defending it, but they're related to Chinese beliefs about gender, not the policy.
Not us. Most first world countries are barely growing if at all if you exclude immigration. I do agree that this limit is necessary for the entire continent of Africa and certain countries in South and Southeast Asia.
Mhm. I can see that.
I really think we need to start limiting population growth now. While China is having innovations such as sea rice and growing crops in deserts, that only solves the food part of population growth.
With more people, diseases that spread based on population density will run rampant. Death rates will go up at some point that it may sharply exceed that of birth rates. I'm not sure how people will handle this, since bacteria, viruses, parasites, and other pathogens will mutate quickly, and global eradication of harmful pathogens is unrealistic.
Another point to consider is waste. People produce a lot of crap. With so much crap going around, where will be dump it? We're not back in the medieval ages where we can dump crap in the river or something. We know that's dangerous to the environment and simply flushes waste away without actually decomposing it. The trash vortexes composed much of plastic are still swirling. More things like plastic-eating bacteria could help though.
Then there's land problems. I think this was what you were going for at first. Do we just push people into the oceans? Planet earth contains a lot of space, and utilizing the underground, multi-level buildings, manmade islands, and unconventional places can house growing populations.
Somebody bugged me, and I forgot where I was going with this.
EDIT: Oh yeah. Populations start to plateau and decline (before, usually, going back up) at some point.
EDIT 2: Forgot to answer the original question. We should have a global limit for reproduction.
All of these points are valid. China is making plastic fucking food to feed their people, because they are so overpopulated. And the world population is growing everyday. Diseases are still developing, waste is still stacking, and people are still fucking like rabbits.
Meh, that's prolly not realistic will all the broken condoms and people wanting their freedoms and such - the problem is for people that'll be alive after I'm already in hell.
What'd be more realistic is:
Either we can be pro-war and start a few more that kill a lot of people.
Or maybe world peace and focus all that money that'd previously gone to war, to schooling and science and colonize a new planet, enslave the inhabitants, and destroy it too cause now that you can travel the universe you have unlimited planets so the individual ones don't matter, and since the universe is constantly expanding you'll never run out of planets to fuck with.
Family planning and sex ed?
NO. GLOBAL HOLOCAUST NOW
Two extremely ineffective things. Good point there bud.
Family planning and sex ed are the only things that are proven to work. Of course, you don't care about facts because you're an edgy teenage faggot. That's really the fact of the matter; I'm not sure why anyone is condascendng this fucking retardation with responses.
How many people do you know actually does family planning? I've personally never met one. 40% of babies are born on complete accident; and have you even been to fucking high school you sociopathic fuck? Yeah, everyone knows about sex ed, but until you know ten people at school that are pregnant from fucking their boyfriends/friends.
Nobody I know at my high school got pregnant you fuck, because got taught how to use contraceptives. Jesus damn
Teenagers aren't smart, and that's a FACT. You think a class that they barely pay attention to will actually persuade them to not have sex that feels better?
Yes you colossally dense retard.
Yes, because 24 people represent the entire population of the world.
It's like you're thinking that it's only 40% of people have babies accidentally.
They're literally third world youth who paid attention in class and as a result contracted fewer STIs. Next time you're barebacking the lunch lady, come on her thigh; we don't need your fucking genetics propagating.
This survey is on such a small scale that it astounds me that you're using it in such a high regard. 24 people, contracted fewer STIs.... great! And yes, Sex Ed is in fact informational; but that doesn't mean that everyone that sat through that class was going to use a condom all the fucking time. Just wait until they find out how much better sex is without it...
40% is a lot of unplanned babies, so how's planned parenthood working out for ya? And STDs aren't exactly the problem here, it's the population growing (which it is, of course).
And that lunch lady was sexy as hell, and I nutted in her asshole. Don't judge.
Ha, the notion you've had sex with or without condoms. Anyhow, 40% means 60% aren't, so yeah, that's progress.
That's actually funnyyy. Good job Mizal, I'm glad you have audacity to assume something about somebody on the internet that you know nothing about. Sex is fun, and feels better without a condom.
No ma'am, it's just funny that you stated that, when I know firsthand what high school irresponsible sex is all about.
Outside of rural assfuck wherever you're from, people do use family planning. It's called birth control. I don't know any pregnant teens here, because I guess outside your shithole people are smarter than you think.
I really like how Holocaust is in comic sans. It seems so appropriate.
I absolutely believe in limiting reproduction, but often times that opinion is met with anger so expressing it often is something I do not do.
No, no. I got a better idea. Create a disease that sterilizes the entire human race, and then after the population is at a suitable level and you need more humans again, clone them. That way every human is born on purpose and with a purpose.
"We did it lads! The disease worked, now we've nearly driven Man extinct! Time to create a brave new world where we clone everyone. Dr Monroe, you were in charge of cloning, get to it."
"No sir, that was Dr Stevens!"
"It was supposed to be you!"
Cloning is actually already available. Not like, oh hay, there's a new 20 year old man that's only 2 days old or anything. They still have to be born and such, it just has the same genetic makeup as if they were identical twins of differing ages. No men needed. They've cloned cows, mice, sheep and even a human - though they didn't let the pregnancy come to term for the human because there's a whole load of morality and religous issues with cloned humans.
So I believe I'd have to amend my earlier statement - a disease that sterilizes all the men. Woman are still needed for the human race to survive.
Well I was just joking, but if you wanted an actual reason why your idea is stupid, I feel that should be more obvious.
Now ish me. I think. Unless Ford had just been screwing around.
Nah, it'll be more fun to see the chaos of everyone blaming/fighting each other when this actually becomes a real problem. Sort of like what's going on with global warming right now.
I say we offer Royal Ghost to the roving Nigerian rape gangs. He's effeminate enough for it to work, too.
Pffft, it's North African dick or nothing
The post apocalyptic situation would be very chaotic and entertaining.
What's your gripe against poor people having children?
It's not really fair to the children to not be properly taken care of, and it really does suck for them. Poor, as in, can't pay for food, can't pay for clothes poor, not like, can't get them the brand new Xbox One X poor.
Well, I'm sure it was a character building experience, but that doesn't mean you should've been put through that. No child should be homeless, ever.
If you are POOR AF and you want to bring a child into this world, knowing damn well you don't have any money to pay living costs for your child, then you shouldn't bring it into the world.
I doubt anyone here is going to debate that you shouldn't be in a position where you're fiscally capable to before having children. The issue is you believing we should as a society impede on people's reproductive rights due to a lack of wealth.
That is actually a misconception that has to do with the fact there are several countries going through the third and second phase of development right now and are moving through the phases faster and faster.
The first step is the lots of births and lots of death phase followed by the lots of birth and fewer deaths phase. The second step is slowing down of birth rates which ends in a stable population.
For Example the average children in a family in America forty years ago was 5-6. Today it is 2-3 with more and more young adults getting married and having kids later in life the statis of it show few families are even having kids preferring to adopt.
If you look at the developed world this is not an exception its the rule. In fact it is happening faster and faster it took South Africa only 34 years what it took Most countries 80. Bangladesh did it in 20 and Iran in 10. In fact it is likely we will reach the top of a bell curve and stay there with minor fluctuations. Some scientists are so sure of this fact that some say the 12 billion human will never be born.
So TLDR Dont worry about it. Like most things it tends to work out in the end.
People in third world countries don't use nearly the amount of resources or cause nearly the pollution that people in 1st world countries do, so the places with overpopulation are usually just fine. People have loads of kids, those kids starve to death and feed the vultures, desperate wasteland dwellers kill those vultures for food, it's a very simple and easy cycle. And yeah, people will generally have whatever amount of children they want, or they'll kill/send for adoption until they find a baby they want, like they do in China. Really I'd just make all drugs legal for recreational use at 18, have sterilization procedures be free, and make tax programs reward people for adopting rather than having multiple biological kids.
To combat 'overpopulation' in the first world to keep edgy teenagers happy, I think I'd mostly just gas everyone whose religion is explicitly against birth control and send them to Africa as Burgers, then use the funds to build schools and stuff with Sex Ed and other things that actually work. And, y'know, gladiatorial combat for death row inmates should also be fun. Also, the Olympics should start hosting Bareknuckle Boxing and real proper fencing as sports rather than the stupid point-system bulsch that doesn't mean anything and has been flanderised to nothing. Also, no professionals should be allowed into the Olympics, it should be a funtime for people who pay to enter only, just like in the 1800s. Then a significant portion of the world will kill themselves out of crushed dreams. Insurance waivers for television shows should be allowed to waive almost everything except constitutional rights, so people can duel to the death and partake in Wipeout, but the Big Balls are made of steel and the boxing glove wall is just hammers. And there's no water.
Volleyball in all its forms shall be replaced by Hooverball. American Football in all its forms shall be replaced by Rugby, and any place whose national sport was Rugby shall be made to start producing teams of Bouncy-Castle Kickboxers instead. Lacrosse players will be allowed to fight like Hockey Players, and Hockey-Players will be made to play hockey in bodies of water with rocky bottoms, preferably in simulated rivers. I really just need sports to be more interesting to watch if I'm going to be interested in the problems of people who go outside, honestly.
Very informational piece. I think if the world implemented these things in todays society the world would be a lot more entertaining, to say the least.
I like War and without manpower there can be no massive wars.
Not even going to lie I'm actually hoping ww3 happens with China, Russia, United States, and maybe a coalition of African, South American, and middle eastern countries just duking it out , just without the nukes.
Well maybe one displaced nuke by extremists.
On more progressive note if we gave every single person in the world adequate education we would be centuries ahead of where we are. Think of all the Einsteins born in Africa or Jihadists used to make bombs for ISIS.
Education is Power.
Well then again you have cases like, Ted Kaczynski
I say that we kill the fucking bastards who like to have sex without condoms. The rapers probably are the main cause of reproduction. Their goal is to fucking pick up a girl, inject sperms in her and then they leave her. Boom.
They should destroy strip-clubs, whore houses etc if they don't want more peeps having a child pop out of their vagina. Oh- also the alcohol has to go. Drugs can make you think less, and if there is a chick right next to you... Who knows what the fuck you'll do.
What if we make it to where you can have sex without condoms, and still don't have to worry about babies coming out?
Oh, you mean like birth control? Jesus fuck you're retarded
Awh, aren't you so smart? Smart enough to read the thread and know that I'm advocating cutting reproduction down. But I'm a sexist? Shit, cut balls off too, that'll help.
The problem with that is is that is costs money and if you have no money then you're gonna fuk and if you fuk then babies come out and then we got no room.
You mean those implants in your arm which prevent you from having children. Basically, that's birth control.
Cumming in a girl isn't necessarily rape. I dare say most of the times that has isn't rape. Strip Clubs and whore houses are pretty terrific and we have a right to them, so no, keep those. Alcohol and drugs are... you know, fuck it, I'd sooner nuke the world than go this 1984 eliminate the orgasm path.
Eh, you know. Keep trying to make some chemical that turns people gay would help solve endless social issues including overpopulation.
Expand abortion rights so no one has kids they don't want or can't take care of, and expand euthanasia to kill all the depressed fucks taking up resources they're not enjoying.
And fuck it, maybe we just start using licenses for having kids. You only get them if you're capable of raising them.
Bam, problem solved.
I actually like that idea. One of my teachers was thinking of something roughly like this; moreso relating to taking classes and learning how to raise a child, but close enough.
Steve's suggestion of giving parents licenses if they can ACTUALLY raise the child. Also, there should be some licenses for having sex as well. Steve, nice idea.
No, people like sex. Let them have as much of that as they want, bread and circus style.
I know that people like sex, but if they do it without condoms.. We'll have to worry about one more child being added to our population and stuff.
let’s all be gay then
Yes, because I'm obviously a racist.
What a bitch.
It is racist (obviously) to support enslaving black people. You want to kill the black people to make more space and more recources for predominantly white countries. I'd have a feeling that even most slave owners would say you're being racist (and stupid and evil).
Please, go to a slum of Kenya and say these positions of yours. You'd become one step closer to your goal. :)
None of this is what I support, maybe I came off the wrong way or didn't think that through. I was half-trolling and half trying to make people think and have an active thread, so sorry if I offended anyone so deeply like that.
When people are starting to hate me around here, I might crack under the pressure.
Yeah, sometimes I feel like I might crack as well. Happens to everyone, but I don't hate you mate. Everyone's just messing with you as a joke. Not a very kind one, but hopefully it isn't directed towards you as an insult.
Mizal, you are sounding quite racist right now, and you dislike children? There are children on this website, and you were a child once upon a time.
let's make mars and the moon somewhat habitable with basic survival needs and send one hundred hardcore criminals and masochist volunteers at a time every month/week until a a group manages to survive.
Fuck survival. I don't care if I starve or suffocate, I just wanna build a big swimming pool and do dolphin jumps/mile long waterslides before I die.
I admire your spirit, Sentinel. Before I die, I just want to play Legend of Zelda and have some furry sex at the same time. It sounds like a really good idea to me.
Also, I would love to watch some Boku No Pico on Pornhub. Best hentai show ever. Watching it uncensored is pretty marvelous.
(Don't judge. If you read my profile, you'll understand that I'm an anime addict.)
Now look here, just because you have problems doesn't mean I can't judge!
Meh.. I'm just a strange twisted person in my own way. I'm just some person who likes anime and video-games. No biggie.. Some anime is crap though. (I fucking hate Dragon-Ball Z. Nobody gives a shit about Goku!) But seriously, NASA should think about sending a group of volunteers to Mars to see if it is suitable or not.
I think that if we send the test subjects to Mars, they actually might survive due to these reasons:
Does anyone else agree with my reasons?
This is a pretty important global issue today, so I'm going to take a serious but open-minded approach and encourage you to do the same. Wouldntitbenice, Crescentstar, cool74, and malkalack have already voiced relatively well-founded opinions, so pardon me if this sounds a little repetitive at points.
The 5 stages of demographic transition have been pretty well-established in history. Here they are:
1. Before development, birth rate is high but death rate is also very high, so the population does not grow too much. (This happened up until the industrial revolution).
2. During development, birth rate is still high because people/society have not adjusted yet but death rate drops, so the population increases drastically.
3. After development, birth rate drops as children become less valuable and other various factors such as birth control and sex ed. Women are usually not seen as just child bearers.
4. Population growth stops as birth rate again levels with the death rate.
5. For uncertain reasons, data has shown that the birth rate rises again quite a while after development, but not by too much.
Today, there are quite a few nations in stages 4 or 5, but developing nations are usually found in either 2 or 3. As long as nations continue to develop thanks to capitalism, though, the demographic transition should continue to progress.
Do you like graphs? I like graphs.
You can ignore the projection if you want, but it is based on statistical models from the UN.
The most important result from this data-based graph is that while the world population is still increasing, the rate of that growth is decreasing. You can see this in the decrease in the instantaneous gradient of the main blue graph or just look at the line. If you've taken differential calculus, this should be easy to understand.
Since around the 1970s, the rate of population growth has decreased quite a bit, and the UN expects that it will continue to decrease to a little above 0% in the long run.
Will this problem eventually consume us all? Well, even if the model is correct and the world population is going to reach a peak, we still have to deal with a growth all the way to around 11.2 billion. I'm going to assume you're worried about the effect we might have on the environment because starvation, in a way, 'fixes' the problem. In developed countries, even though the population is relatively stable, people are still very wasteful and global warming/global dimming/ocean acidification/waste build-up continue to be huge problems.
Sure, we should emphasize development of nations as the data shows that increases in education and lessening mortality cause an eventual decrease in birth rate (phase 3 of demographic transition), but developed nations have their own problems to worry about.
The real issue here is our treatment of the environment. If we can come up with a system to make all our energy renewable and stop polluting the environment so much, then an increase in the amount of people using said energy and resources shouldn't be too much of an issue. There's plenty of energy from the sun to go around if you ignore the fact that the sun will eventually explode.
Even if we could impose a global restriction on population and modern democratic/capitalist nations would accept it, we would be dodging the real issue because our population is not increasing exponentially, and developed countries would still produce astonishing amounts of waste at an unsustainable rate.
Here are some related links in case you like being educated. My information comes mostly from the second one.
And here is our intellectual/nerd person to supply the data that we need to reach our conclusion of should we limit reproduction and why. (I called you a nerd as a compliment, not an insult.)
Hats off to you Jeffery. And I like graphs as well.
Fuckin hilarious, a girl I know just ran up to me and told me she was pregnant.
I'm assuming they're underage.
Someone might be going to jail soon.
She didn't seem unhappy about it.
Honestly even if you did integrate a law making it illegal for financially unstable people to have children, you would only make it a bigger problem. Most people probably wouldn’t care about abiding a law like that. Do you honestly think that people you classify as “poor people” would be like “Oh crap I can’t get laid because of this law saying I can’t have sex because the risk of getting pregnant and overpopulating the world is too high”.
The Prohibition of the 1920’s which restricted the sale of alcohol caused booze-running gangs and over 700 underground saloons to be built. Honestly most people dont give a crap about laws restricting these kind of things.
Just trying to do my part in adding to this hellhole of an RG thread.
150 replies though.
Alcohol differs in that A. It's addictive and B. It's relatively easy to consume and hide, unlike say, a person. Poor people could still fuck all they want, I'd imagine you'd just have to popularize birth control and abortion on a wider scale to prevent the actual pregnancy. We've seen the one child policy work in China to the point where they're not dealing with a huge aging population and not enough younglings to deal with it, so there's at least some evidence it works.
The male to female ratio is fucked up because China's misogynistic as shit. My solution to that is an autocratic empire led by me. Since most parents are idiots who spread their idiocy through their children, as soon as I find your views stupid enough I'm taking your kids. That way, in like two generations I've wiped out racism, sexism, homophobia and fans of Force Awakens and Logan. There'll be rebels, of course, because people are terrified of mass change even though fuck knows our ancestor slike the IRA boys or youor founding fathers would be disgusted with modern society, but I'm pretty sure it's only like four people who actually cause issues, so I'll be grand.
China's gender imbalance is honestly way overblown. The ratio is only 106 men: 100 women. Many countries have a way worse imbalance in the opposite direction.
A population never suffers too much from having more women than men. Strictly by caveman logic, men are pretty expendable considering that one dude could easily father the kids of 10+ women and restore the population (though the dude raising those kids is a completely different problem.) And, let's face it, men tend to compete much more violently than women do on account of their scrotular drive, so having women equal or outnumber men results in less violent crimes because you don't have to travel to find the other fish in the sea.
Can you source your claim that men in China are violently fighting over women?
I never claimed that, I said men compete more violently, which is readily apparent everywhere since the dawn of history. More women then men, logically, would reduce that in a lot of circumstances. The point was not directed at China, the point was just what I said it was, a population hardly ever suffers by women out numbering men.