Heres a quick one for discussion. Not sure whether it would end up needing to be put in speakers corner, but hopefully itll be safe.

The problem:

The global population is pretty high (cant remember if weve passed the 7 billion mark). Many sustainable development (and similar) models suggest that for a "good" quality of living, the population would really want to be around 2 billion. (One problem is the definition of "good" in these models is often of a developed western countries consumption rate as opposed to essentials etc).

However, if we put aside the definition of "good" quality of living, therere other problems just below the surface. One key one that comes to mind is humankinds medical endevours. Not only in developed countries, where people are living longer and thus consuming more resources, but in 3rd world countries. If you think of the ads stating that with just a little money they could have fed all the children and gotten rid of thousands of deaths, you have to wonder what would happen if suddenly everyone started living more (IE death rates plummeted globally).

Dont get me wrong, everyone has the right to life and theres no reason why preference should be given to a developed country.This discussion is just on what peoples views are on the situation.

Though Im not advocating it, or in favour of it...but to me the only solution/s to this problem of global consumption would be some global policy of birth control ala "Brave New World" or even seen in Larry Nivens "Ringworld". I mean, to start people could be allowed 1 child each (IE a couple could have 2 children etc) which enforced globally would  stop population increase. Reversing the children support system so that it becomes desirable to have just 1 or 0 children would then aid in the decrease of the populations. This could combat the rise from the fact people already born would survive longer. - Obviously never enforceable, just a hypothetical control

To tackle the resource issues, a solution I see would be the relocation of entire continents population. Urbanisation of already developed continents and the outsourcing of agriculture etc to less developed locations. Various techs are already underway which require huge amounts of space but at the same time could provide vast renewable resources if they went ahead.

Now, the above ideas paint a grim picture of the world should they actually happen. But to me I cannot imagine any other solutions that could tackle the problems of increasing population and decreasing resources. Anyone else got any ideas.

Heres a quick one for discussion. Not sure whether it would end up needing to be put in speakers corner, but hopefully itll be safe.

The problem:

The global population is pretty high (cant remember if weve passed the 7 billion mark). Many sustainable development (and similar) models suggest that for a "good" quality of living, the population would really want to be around 2 billion. (One problem is the definition of "good" in these models is often of a developed western countries consumption rate as opposed to essentials etc).

However, if we put aside the definition of "good" quality of living, therere other problems just below the surface. One key one that comes to mind is humankinds medical endevours. Not only in developed countries, where people are living longer and thus consuming more resources, but in 3rd world countries. If you think of the ads stating that with just a little money they could have fed all the children and gotten rid of thousands of deaths, you have to wonder what would happen if suddenly everyone started living more (IE death rates plummeted globally).

Dont get me wrong, everyone has the right to life and theres no reason why preference should be given to a developed country.This discussion is just on what peoples views are on the situation.

Though Im not advocating it, or in favour of it...but to me the only solution/s to this problem of global consumption would be some global policy of birth control ala "Brave New World" or even seen in Larry Nivens "Ringworld". I mean, to start people could be allowed 1 child each (IE a couple could have 2 children etc) which enforced globally would  stop population increase. Reversing the children support system so that it becomes desirable to have just 1 or 0 children would then aid in the decrease of the populations. This could combat the rise from the fact people already born would survive longer. - Obviously never enforceable, just a hypothetical control

To tackle the resource issues, a solution I see would be the relocation of entire continents population. Urbanisation of already developed continents and the outsourcing of agriculture etc to less developed locations. Various techs are already underway which require huge amounts of space but at the same time could provide vast renewable resources if they went ahead.

Now, the above ideas paint a grim picture of the world should they actually happen. But to me I cannot imagine any other solutions that could tackle the problems of increasing population and decreasing resources. Anyone else got any ideas.

said somthing simlair in privateers thread.

To many people in the world & its unsustainable. In the animal kingdom, the weak die & the strong survive. In our kingdom, the Strong have to compensate the weak with everything from donations to paying taxes.

Why are we made to feel guilty when a collection box is waived in our face? I couldnt really care less if some african was starving 5,000 miles away. Hes not my creation, hes not my problem. Let them deal with it. Been plenty of independance wars over the years.

Im an animal. All I care about is my own welfare & survival. If I have to eat/exploit others to do that, then thats what Ill do. Im sure the richest people in the world didnt get rich by being niece or not exploiting someone somwhere..

and another question.. the queen is in power because of the royal line.. somwhere along that line her relative would have killed the current king in their time. So why cant someone now kill the head of the royal family & announce themselves king? that one has always puzzled me.

I dont think Eggs post was random at all, I think it hit the nail on the head quite nicely.

Whatever people may say about the one child policy in the PRC at least its a ballsy decision, everything nowadays is done with a silk glove (thats if it gets done at all) so as not to offend group x,y or z.

edit-> (not group x arab sensations)

Heh bit of a random last point there!

As to the animal thing, you have to consider though that many species of animal also have a community structure, where altruism existsin individuals. A good recent example was in Life in Cold blood where a female caymen looked after the young of a whole group of other female caymen.

Im not sure whether my thoughts on this stuff have come about as a result of reading Olaf Stapledons "Star Maker" last year, and the sustainable developement Ive covered at un etc. In  Star Maker, he covers the evolution of species on different planets and how over the millenia the few dominant species obtain a sense of community that first spans the globe, before they become a collective mind almost, and then from there he scales it up from planets to solar systems to galaxies.

I guess what I mean is its made me think whether this planet would ever truly get a global community sense going on where country boundaries no longer exist etc. Im guessing that would only ever happen in the event of colonisation of other planets...where its no longer "Im british" or "Im French" but "Im terran/martian/a lunatic" hehe

buts its different a colony. everyone is there to do their own little bit.
Im sure if said caymen didnt look after the young, shed soon be outcasted.

I dont think Eggs post was random at all, I think it hit the nail on the head quite nicely.

Not the post, the last point RE: The Queen. Its a valid point, just a random jump away from the main topic.

As to the long term SD thing, Id agree. I somehow managed a 1st in my final year Law essay on Regional Spatial Strategies and Sustainable Development, where I basically slated the whole thing on the basis of the sustainable developement terminology being used

and another question.. the queen is in power because of the royal line.. somwhere along that line her relative would have killed the current king in their time. So why cant someone now kill the head of the royal family & announce themselves king? that one has always puzzled me.

The Queens ancestor was invited over, but previous to that people have murdered to get on the throne, the issue being they were in line for it or/and had the backing of those with power.

As to zpyders question, people dont have a right to life, its just a crime to kill someone. Even limiting birth rates might not be enough, there are already wars going on specifically on the issue of overcrowding. Its taken the Chinese many years and they still arent into negative population growth AFAIK.

If there was anything needed to be down it will be down to late.... as per usual, also about imagrants, i was told yesterday that foreign nationalists can claim child benefit even if there child isnt in the same country....  

The HRA covers things that the govt. is responsible for pretty much. So fair trials, nuisances, right to a place to live (IE, new age travellers) etc. Curing everyone of their illnesses is a bit too far. Similarly preventing injury is too (though you could argue the govts health and safety stuff and the NHS attempt to tackle these ). I could just forsee in the future should the population get too high, that human rights could get thrown about a bit in terms of the rights of everyone living in the country at present to not be cramped anymore, vs the rights of people to have a family.