bschu

Technically speaking. No, it is not an <insert adjective> attack. I was defending myself, and one of the previous people apparently understood this and removed their negative reputation. Now I am being attacked again, you just called me names, and again, misread what I was saying, just focusing on the negative and inciting anger. Why? No seriously! Why? Are you ok? Are you having a bad day? Dude, I'm here for you as a friend, but not as a punching bag. Why do you choose the worst Post in this thread to respond to? While not adhering to the topic at all? Is that not against the forum guidelines? I am not a saint, I am a human. And I sincerely apologize if I have annoyed anyone.

I was hoping this thread would die because I've been made out to be a "supporter" of population control. Which ... dear god if anyone is listening please "get it"... I am NOT. But anyway, since you bring it up, there is more: * In China they have advertisements everywhere you go "Get your cheap abortion today!" And "reportedly" a lot of the women who go through this procedure mysteriously can not produce children again. * Yes, Chinese families prefer boys to girls and they are open about it. Like beyond dinner conversation open, just in random chit chat. I've heard too much first hand with girls about how their "family doesn't like them because they are not a boy". Thus girls are more frequently aborted than not, and to the extent that the gov made a law against ultra sound, but they still find a way to do it and abort girls. * This is perhaps in theory, but some say the policy also leads to this enormous generation of people who don't really work well together and/or have some behavior issues about them. Simply stated, imagine a country of highly sheltered, first born, single children trying to get along at work. It sounds insulting to mention, but I have found it to also be a commonly known concern that comes up. But regarding this article, to be fair... * 30 mil is like 2% of the Chinese population, and a lot of Chinese these days are traveling and moving out of country. My calculator is telling me that 30,000,000 / 1,300,000,000 =~ 0.02. Via my experience people are getting along just fine. New marriages and babies everyday. You can make a full-time occupation out of attending weddings. * Not everyone is a single child. There are a lot of families with multiple kids. * It is not a one-shoe-fits-all policy. Families in rural areas and/or farming families are allowed to have as many kids as they want. I actually met a family of 7 daughters who came from a farm and were selling fruit in a shop they had in town. Nice people. * We have all confirmed 1,000 times over... It's the states fault to begin with, it's the states fault, it's the states fault. And.... now... What would you do differently to handle the situation? What would happen if they did NOT enforce this policy? Another interesting question, might be whether the state actually wants to decrease population? Some say the population's resulting despair is what causes cheap labor, and that is big business. Business, which is so frequently controlled by the government. Not a happy topic I guess. But I am just so used to it. Perhaps that is why I got the reaction I did and didn't understand what people were flipping out about.

Thanks for sharing this. In fact before you even posted this I had run back to my copy of Selfish Gene and checked if r/K had in fact come directly from this book after listening to Stefan's r/K episode, although I didn't see it in chapter titles and didn't have time to read through, but it seems to be within the same theory of survival tactics that Dawkins explains after the replicators content. I didn't finish the book but did get up to the relevant parts you are talking about here in survival strategy. Apparently Robert MacArther is the person responsible for this r/K theory though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory Your association to good and evil here, which I'm not sure if comes directly from the book, is a very interesting way of framing things. I have been looking at the world through the survival tactics chapters I read thus far for a while now and it is a sobering frame of mind. Perhaps scary for some to think that we are all behaving upon such a simple presupposition, but we spend so much of our time in things trivial to the overall evolution of life. I have to remind myself not to fall into the trap of assuming this is all designed but simply occurring through the force of nature, but what a complex thing, and with such systematic strategy, to conceive as being incidental to millions of years of trial and error. Or... does that just make perfect sense

I am new to the boards, and philosophy in general. Please take it easy on me if I am going against the grain. I was thinking about "choice" in morals and ethics, and how not much of these things came up in my primary education. And there was very little philosophy in my life from a young age. I was raised Catholic but went to a public school. Currently I am atheist and nearing 40. In Catholicism of course morals are "given" to you, like programming code written into a software, not to be argued. In public school, at least those I attended, these things were not taught as far as I can recall (surprise), ethics was a class on how to behave under the law, and I would assume this pattern would be true for most public school systems in the US. But now that I apply thought to it I seem to think that morals are a choice in decision making which one stands by without waver... Or, seeing a particular choice as clear as a fact such as "the sky is blue" might seem analogous to "Do not murder" for most people. Not to be confused with opinions, but based on a code of conduct which enables one to believe they are doing things to the betterment of themselves and 'the whole', with 'the whole' being a variable from society, to family, friends, loved ones, etc. Having come from a very traditional and/or religious family it was no easy task of finding myself, and being different. And with all the matters going on in the world today of "beheadings for infidels" and such. I can only imagine what someone must be going through right now, when in fact, morals should be "a choice" by virtue of their own nature, a human mind's inner desire to make its own choices and function upon them. Questions I have are: Do you believe Morals should to be taught to children as a primary set of instructions? If yes, in schools? or only within family or private institutions? If no, why not? Same questions above for Philosophy in general? Do you think people tend to fear exposing children to the "choice" aspect of morals in fear that they might make bad decisions? (e.g. Deciding it is okay to steal at a young age despite punishment...)

to RoseCodex If you don't like someone's post topic or feel disgusted by its content, then you can also choose to disregard it and allow them to learn something in discussion with other people. You are clearly being very childish by putting me in the frame of being some type of Maoist, which might as well be stating that someone is Hitler in their ethics. And I would like to tell you that I do try as hard as I can to live an ethical life, in what can be a very cruel world. Do you have any idea what I have been through and the types of things I have seen? I came here because I want to learn more and help be part of the solution. Does that answer your question thoroughly? Why would someone bring up such a topic if they didn't care? And even if I was that base, can you not optimistically view it as "a good start for someone who clearly doesn't understand these things".... no, but always assuming the worst, and only quoting the negative, then framing me, in what I was hoping to be an objective discussion and not my personal views to begin with! In fact. I am just "some dude" trying to "have a conversation" on some thoughts I have from my life experience, and which I thought would be new and interesting for this group, and that I thought would fit in around here based on my reading. Perhaps you are right for asking me what I am doing in this corner of the internet, although I was invited to come via an email from Stefan after I donated, and didn't even think of it prior. I didn't come here to troll, I can say that much. And to think of the meaning to ask me what am I doing here? Really? Do you show someone the door because you don't like them bringing up a sensitive topic? Does that line up with the high ethics you apparently feel to have over me? After one conversation which you didn't like, you aim straight for the jugular, accuse me of being the most hated thing in the global society, and show me the door? You don't even know me! I have repeatedly stated and stated again that these are not my beliefs and that I am just meandering, poking, prodding. You do not have to insult me to get my attention and make a change in my way of thinking. Have you read anything I've written? I am agreeing on all ethical and logical points! I have conceded to every argument that these issues are in fact result of statist phenomenon. And if any of this is not making perfect logical sense, can you not just "get it" without going off the deep end on me? I'm sorry I'm just human here, I mean you no harm! And I can only assume that it is you giving me negative reputation, which is even more childish. But let's say it isn't you, whoever it is, how are you helping besides adding fuel to the fire. I 100% wholeheartedly apologize if I have come to the wrong place in the internet. After watching Stefan's videos I thought I would be coming to a compassionate and empathetic place, a hopeful place. But I feel utterly disgusted by this cherry picking of my words, nit picking of minutia, and the horrible framing and labeling. I wish I could start over, but I guess this is my fate, such a horrible first impression to the FDR boards. I wish I could tell you how saddened I am by this. Look at the time from my last post to this. You talk about horrible control over people, did you know that you can control people through hurtful comments and manipulation just as well? Does that make the world a better place? Do the ends justify the means? And if nothing else. How about a little decency and/or respect? Does that float around here? I am not in the business of irritating societies. If my reputation is down already, and I have clearly raised so many hairs, then you are right, and fine. I will in fact show myself the door if that is for the best. But I have had my say here and I had no ill intentions. Best of luck.

"I hope you really think deeply about why it is you wish to control billions of other human beings, and recognize that it will never work the way you want it to." WHAT?! Thanks for the undeserved spit in the face. Don't expect any more responses.

Thank you for this informative and thought provoking response! The answers to the questions are so somewhat dynamic, for me, and long. Let's take the first question which is rather general but sparks a lot of creativity. How many people are too many? (Again, without meaning to mandate or enforce anything, but simply trying to answer the question objectively) I can not give an exact number, however I can see dynamic scenarios, as populations tend to group together to form districts, towns, cities etc. But we can assume some scenarios and ask some questions to determine limits. - When the lifestyle of a demographic becomes uncomfortable or unhealthy. - When resources are limited. - When the amount livable space is limited. - When pollution becomes a problem. - When managing waste becomes a problem. Am I being narrow minded or realistic? Perhaps narrow minded because I could say that all of the above are simply problems which require solutions in order for the population to continue growing. Perhaps realistic, because to date, people have these problems and still have much difficulty dealing with them... Regarding the communication issues here. It is becoming clear to me that many people here are genuinely incapable of having an objective discussion. Meaning that they can not put the matter on the table, rise above it, and collectively discuss it. No. They must force the object into someone's hand, claim it belongs to that person, and then criticize both the object and its owner.

Thanks again Torero. This is getting lengthy and I won't hold it up much longer because I would like to move on to other topics, and I have been given a lot to research already, but I will give some responses in general here. I don't think I agree with the state making bedroom occupancy laws, I just think that is happening already despite our wishes anyway (I did look it up, and there are ordinances in the US, not sure how strongly enforced...), and I guess I might concede that it seems reasonable for the same reason that overpopulation can cause issues, cramming people into living space is probably not good. Hm... should regulation apply or enforcement, and am I statist for saying so? Well, to each their own, I won't tell someone how to live their lives, but what if someone's gross amount of garbage, noise, vehicle, and other pollution - as a result of having a crammed up house - happens to be my neighbor. I believe this is where the state might actually seem a savior. Again, not really supporting the idea, just noting a consideration. OK, let me say this one thing here. Your instances of eliminating the state to get to the core of the problem, I agree on all cases! Because I am not really making a state vs no-state argument and I tend to agree with that philosophy. But the thing is, we are in fact living in statist societies now, and as long as that is ongoing I can't help thinking of ways to improve upon the condition "within reason". I know... a polished turd is still a turd. But if we can put that to the side, as I tend to agree anyway, and let's say we are living in anarchy or small government "now". So... Population... It still happens, no? Maybe times are good, people are sending their big families' children to private schools, and the population can still have a boom for whatever unforeseen reason. There will still be big cities which many people like in this new non-state world we live in. And thus population issues are likely to rise up here too, albeit, perhaps coming and going more naturally like tides, but still to be taken seriously when it builds up, I suggest! Basically, I feel as though we are still in hypothesis or "near theory" about whether a non-state society will "guarantee" a healthy population, or if not guarantee at least give us better chances. And doesn't a non-state system require a bit more education and self-regulation? Thus even in a non-state society, still, it would probably be good to educate ourselves on the dangers of overpopulation. Being that we agree at this point that overpopulation is bad. Regarding George Washington, hahaha I'm sorry, I should not have said that. Please understand this was not my meaning, but it is clear why you interpreted it like this. Remember I lived in China for 12 years? In fact, many Chinese have referred to Mao like this, and I guess I just forgot my audience here. Of course the two leaders are very different... but... do remember that "for the Chinese" this might actually be the viewpoint... and if you can accept that, then you'll see my original point was harmless. I'm just saying that he is given credit for the population boom, by many! And I think we can call that a historical fact... but I have learned not to argue history at the international level and will leave it to you. OK, I concede to all points that statism causes population booms, and/or overpopulation in general. "However", again, can we prove that "non-state" will "guarantee" a healthy population. I am not making a point, just asking. I guess all of the models and hypothesis might lead towards a 'Yes'... but, do we really have any non-state demographics to judge from? I just did a search, the results I am getting are not consistent, and what results I get are not really appetizing to support the non-state argument so I will just drop that search. Then, what about going back in history for some no-state, small gov evidence... I have a problem with this, mostly because today's world is so much different. Remember that modern medicine increases population dramatically, and technology makes life much easier. I guess you could also counter that people have condoms and birth control as a result of the modern technology too... but I'm still not sold 100%. Maybe 90% but still not there. Your view on living in space is refreshing. Agreed on the state controlling land too. I actually have a standing issue with this. Sure, I am a sucker for the city life and state run comforts like most... but I should at least "have the choice" to go live off the land if I want, and with some research that seems to be virtually out of the question in the US today. And with so much open land! And as for the rest, all valid points and somewhat enlightening for me! Remember I am new to the boards here, and relatively new to philosophy and these ethical issues as well. So thanks for being patient. The topic is probably taboo because of the types of reactions we saw just in this thread. I seriously had no idea this would turn into a statist argument! I think people also inherently reject anything population control via sci-fi scenarios of government control, and an exaggerated fear of extinction. But if we are to avoid extinction, should we not brave the tough issues?!? Thanks for the good talk.

I think one would have to go back in their personal history to think of the first time they decided to act morally and recall what the reason for that was. As the common topic of FDR here reminds us (child abuse), maybe some people didn't really have the opportunity to experience these first moral moments clearly, OR, that opportunity was ruined for them because of abuse, or harsh environments in youth. I remember wanting to please my mom. I think this is normal, and probably where a lot of morals get developed, or can I at least say this is where the reward pathway will be developed, meaning, where we learn the behavior of "Try to do good in order to receive the reward of happiness - and/or avoid pain". Desire for approval might be found to be normal with children, Fear of the rod is likely universal. I personally find the desire for approval to be true, and at least I can say that I find people in general seem to like approval, I hope I don't need to cite a book for any of this. (Random thought. Maybe a major personality trait difference I find in people is based on whether they prefer seeking approval over fearing the rod.) So anyway, if that is a starting point... Another thing comes to mind which I recall about fundamental learning with children. When a child starts moving around and taking their first steps, they will at some point in time approach a wall. They don't know it's a wall yet, they are taking first steps, they see something, and they don't necessarily know what will happen as their body approaches the wall, but then it "stops" them. Lesson 1. Can't walk through things. Keep thinking along these lines and you can see how there is a lot of physical "trial and error" before that child becomes a professional athlete. Now. With that in mind. Why be Moral? I am just thinking. Is it possible that people experience better trial and error outcomes when basing decisions on morals? I think the answer is yes. We often forget the surroundings we are raised in and the amount of handed-down knowledge. It seems like instinct, but really people spent thousands of years developing literature and educational systems, and we grow up with all of that available to us at an early age. Still, people argue about a lot of these things everyday. Is it moral to kill? But we kill animals. What about death penalty and abortion? So the finer points are controversial and take longer to articulate. With my above reasoning, if I am right, we can suddenly see why a lot of people are more soft on issues regarding killing, because "what if it is YOU". So as a moral code that will perpetuate my survival, and/or survival chances of my children better, I will always vote against murder. Again, more evidence that we are using trial and error, or reasoning, or guess work - all with the desired outcome of "a better way of life, for me" And walking into the wall hurts! Good topic.

Thanks for sharing, this was a fascinating listen. I couldn't help thinking of the chaos described here and how it might apply to the popular anti-statist tendencies in the FDR vicinity (NOTE: Did NOT say I am pro state), but... doesn't an argument arise here? As here we have clearly mapped out an area that is basically corrupted to the point that there is seemingly no state. And, it doesn't seem to be working out so well. What will become of this? I don't think they go in depth into the causes of the condition? Although they start off saying that this area was once colonized by Britain, but also they note that other areas in Africa also colonized by Britain and/or having similar situations which are NOT in the same condition. I believe Ghana was the example if I'm not mistaken. One might say that the implementation of an ethical legal system, and enforced, might have some merit for this demographic? Or, what are the causes that led/lead to this effect?

Torero: Thank you for a detailed and informative response! On China's policy I agree 100% that it is statist, and not to be seen as an ideal, but again that is an extreme situation. I am currently allowing for an idea such as "A table which 'recommends' the amount of children that a family should have according to their demographics." E.g. If you are a wealthy family living in rural areas, Sky is the limit! But if you are a wealthy family planning to reside in Manhattan, perhaps 2 children would be a comfy limit. For reasons which I hope are obvious. But no one really seems to even talk about this? Or do they? I am only suggesting that people might choose to "leave such matters in God's hands" which ultimately can be hurtful to themselves, and the society they are living in. And how many people can we healthily cram into a bedroom? The state is in fact already making law on this. Actually, The more I write about this the more I realize how much population is in fact, not directly, but indirectly controlled via US regulations! Let me add some background as well. I come from a very small hometown who's population was probably at about 5,000 when I was growing up, and now maybe at 11,000 or more. I also lived on a ship in the Navy for three years, crammed into "racks" (sardine bunk beds) and with an allowed locker space of about 2 cubic feet. This is worth considering in matters of "living space". It is not fun and if you weren't claustrophobic beforehand.... Later I moved to China. The ocean of people. For me personally, as stated before, it was not so bad. My USD was strong there at the time and I could afford adequate living space, decent food, and tons of beer Of course there are many downsides health and safety related which I will assume we all know at this point. But still, my concerns are for the people. Example: It is common to beat your children in China because "If you don't hit your kids they won't be successful." It is also common to put your sex, age, height, a photo, and all other personal details on your resume because the workforce competition is so fierce that decision making comes down to minutia. They will judge by these things and others which you wouldn't see as fair. And the education? The students studying like factory slaves from the moment they wake until midnight! Whereas in the US, and probably most other places in the world, we encourage our kids to be in bed by 8 or 9pm, because growing children need sleep! Not to mention rest and play! I think there is no argument regarding that "any" population so dense will face these same problems. But regarding whether this is a result of statism. To be fair. Just let me say that their first Communist leader, the George Washington of China, Chairman Mao, wrote to the country's people that they should multiply and to do so rapidly because there is great wealth on the way and they have no reason to fear. Many equate China's current condition with this state message. But previously, the Chinese have always regarded "big family" as the way to go. More hands to tend the farm, and this is embedded in the culture now. Enough about China The point here is to look at the results of big population. It is the state's fault? Apparently yes, in cases. But I think we can not give proof that only statism can cause this effect with this one example. You say Netherlands is densely populated, I just looked it up, Apparently they are the 64th most populated country in the world, not to shabby! And correct me if I am wrong, but I have never heard Netherlands to be communist? But I guess someone could argue that they are statist. I don't know. I just argue that dense population can happen anywhere. A chart of "statist level" to "population" ratio might be interesting! Maybe this helps. You seem to have little faith for Living in Space, which I have always been optimistic about. Albeit my level of scientific understanding might be in the upper sci-fi level! But that is an interesting viewpoint and I'm curious if you have any reading on that? I think even Hawkins is given credit for saying that we should be pursuing living in space with more enthusiasm. Regarding the Earth holding much more people. YES! Awesome subject to bring up. A friend once told me that we can fit all of the world's population in the Grand Canyon comfortably. And with this being the case, what about spreading out more? I used to always wonder why these insanely dense cities in China didn't just sprawl out! If I am not mistaken we can serve water and power to just about anywhere now, it just gets more expensive. And speaking of resources, how about that? WATER. It is of high value today in many places globally and it is a major factor in population, of course. You see, this is why I brought this topic up, it is not so simple as to say "People good, so free the babies!", there are many things to be considered in order for those babies to live happy and productive lives. And dare we think of the consequences that arise when not adequately provided for?! I'm not sure if these studies still stand, but I recall reading that poverty often results in overpopulation, naturally. and IRONICALLY. But genetically for survival, you might understand why. I do still see some articles on this such as here. I play a game similar to the popular Sim City now. You play the Mayor in a God-like view of the city you are designing. Can you guess how to keep the city going and keep going in the game? That's right, keep the population growing, OR, raise taxes. Either way you have to force money to keep coming in and keep growing. Now that is just a game, but think of how it equates with reality and look at all the challenge in the game such as: managing sufficient power vs pollution ratio. managing sufficient water and sewage vs pollution ratio. manage industry and commercial zonage vs pollution. And in a manner of speaking, it all comes down to "resources vs pollution". And how about that word we keep forgetting to bring up even though we mentioned China so much... POLLUTION. Pollution sucks. I am not exaggerating when I say it is one of the major deciding factors in why I had to leave China. And that was very sad for me. I agree that the more the population grows the harder it will be come. To argue would be to say "The more books you give me the easier I can read" or "The more miles you give me, the faster I can travel"... not true Yet people seem to argue this. So much to say on this topic. Thanks for a great response and more thought or argument welcome if you have. Sima. Thanks for sharing these ideas too, and I can see how this makes sense and would be a great system to adapt. The only weakness I can think of is "competition". So if the whole world followed this system, and the whole world was peaceful, then OK, we're good. But what if a competing country decides to apply pressure to this peaceful and controlled society? It happens all the time! Now is the controlled society going to be strong enough against the competitor? This is an extremely important part of my argument which we haven't gone into deeply yet. I must use China as an example again. With China's "crazy population" they have access to a type of human resource that other countries can't imagine. Out of so many people you are pretty much guaranteed to find the best athletes, the greatest scientist, artists, etc. Where as a smaller more controlled population has less to choose from. If that makes sense, and if that is true, then you can see how a controlled population, regardless if it is state controlled or indirectly/naturally controlled, will fail in competition. OR... will a controlled, minimal population be stronger, such as a thinner/healthier person is stronger against "a fat person" Lean machine vs bloated and heavy? That is a debate within itself.

Facts and figures: 1 - "Go be a hermit if you don't like society" ok... sorry... so let me consider the whole. (even though that's not what I meant) 2 - "I'm not wasting my time on you" ... ok, so you don't care about people. er~~~ wait, that's not considering the whole..? I'm just saying. Based on everything I've read here. The word SELFISH is screaming at me. So why bother responding to me to begin with? OH YEAH! I GET IT! It felt good! Have a day!

To both mellomama and Will: Is it possible that you have had this argument with SOMEONE ELSE previously, and you are confusing them with me? Please read me again and tell me the part where I said I dislike people, society, and/or cities in general? I am speaking to the negative effects on a society, and/or a city's people, from dense populations - and it is out of empathy and concern that I say these things. Personally speaking, my time in the densely populated cities of China, years in Manhattan, and many other densely populated small cities - were among the best years of my life. City life "can be" great. But... there are issues there as well that you won't find in other places. I suggested that you would have to live there yourselves to know this because for me, it was via experience that I learned these things and saw them first hand. NOT saying I hate cities, NOT saying I hate people. In addition, in my argument, I am leaning towards an "admittedly" idealistic hypothesis: Is it possible that society or civilizations in general can operate more optimally with controlled populations? For me, the answer is obviously "yes", because "too much" means "too"... "much"... at some point something has to break. But is there an exception to this when observing human population? Again, not saying I hate people. Not aborting babies here. Just being responsible and intelligent. Sadly, I find it hard to continue even though some really good points were made. I will try to pick at an item or two. mellomama: On unexpected consequences. That is an extreme situation, and I don't mean to agree with China's policy, although if you were in charge of China what would you do? I am sure any great theory you have will also have weaknesses to it. It is not an easy problem they have to deal with. But that aside, I am not saying such a policy is good for the whole world, by far. I am suggesting that education on the "effects of overpopulation" would be useful in places where population has become a problem, or could potentially become a problem. Hey, look. In some places of the world now (you can search it yourself if you need proof) the population is too low. This happens a lot actually and I consider that a problem too!!! (that's 3 whole exclamation points! I dislike low population too! Really!) I really don't mean to dwindle the population and I am not going psycho here. What's will all the hysteria? I am only arguing that saying there should be no limit to population "might be" the equivalent of saying you can never eat too much food. It might feel good, but is it good for the long run? Is it healthy? Will it allow a city to be at its strongest and smartest potential? OK, at this point I can see that I am being labelled as a human hater and I will just see if anyone can get me at this main point. Maybe it needs to be simplified into: Is there such a thing as too many people for a city? OR Does density of population have negative effects on a city, society, civilization? The first sentence I wrote in my introduction is also very interesting. You should check it out! I hope you are all having a better day than it seems!

Thank you, things make sense! That video is actually really informative and right on the topic! I like the Mars bits too Something it brought up was "competition" in populations, and also how populations can be controlled for benefit of an oppressor. That is another subtopic I am very interested in. Whereas in ancient times a bigger population meant a stronger population, I think we can virtually reverse that in today's age via technology. A bigger population is simply more bloated, harder to manage, and thus in some cases slower. And a bunch of other stuff they brought which I'll have to review later was quite interesting. They even mention a book there and I was asking for some reading in my original post. So, perfect response! mellomama You have lost me. I agree with your comment mostly, and I noted clearly the situation in China, and the socialism, so where is that relevant? and/or did you have an argument? By the way, when actually living in China discussing things, most people tend to agree that China is not really "Communist". You can argue that if you want, but they simply maintain "Socialist", and if you really examine the condition of things they are very, very much Capitalist in their business and society now. Things have changed.

Thanks for all the responses here, although I am not sure if you read and understood thoroughly at points. I might ask: Have you ever "lived in" (not visited) a densely populated city? And/or dealt with the types of issues that come with dense population? The list is endless, from health and lifestyle to little things like just parking your car, if you have one, or getting to work on time. I think the experience of living in these conditions has some value to it if you are going to fully understand the argument. Not a single regard to anything I said about China... Have you guys ever watched Stefan's shows? I'm not saying he is on my side here, but the whole "give me an argument not a feeling" concept comes to mind... regarding philosophy vs sophistry. Will: This is already happening, and you are speaking like I have some delusions. I don't appreciate that, but it doesn't make me wrong to think. The second half of your comments is a good topic which I would enjoy expanding on. Firstly, I don't really think of it as "enforced", just "moderated" or "encouraged", via my tax or fine scenario. But I also mentioned just "acknowledgement" of the effects of population on society. This is all based on a concept that severely dense population is "bad", and leads to a word "overpopulation" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation. If we can agree on that, then we agree that people should look into methods of controlling the population, The title of this discussion. And then the "enforcing" part. Well, again I didn't even say that, but they do enforce it successfully in China. People don't like it, but it is understood as a necessity. However I think "enlightening" people on the subject or looking for work-arounds to overly populated areas is also a viable discussion. RoseCodex: I can't agree so quickly that these questions are unanswerable. Why? ... any Facts? Argument? I think it is an interesting thing to consider. City planners probably agree that we already tend to plan out areas for industry, commercial, and residential when managing cities. And there are specifications on how large these areas can grow. So we already have a bit of population control displayed here via "comfort and finance", because for example, millions of people would probably not try to squeeze into a small residential area where ordinances prohibit building over 3 stories high. Regarding the math behind it, I totally agree, it is something that needs to be considered. But again remember that we are already a thousands times over what nature intended for us. Medicine has changed the game completely. So there are already - and will continue to be - "plenty of people" regardless of the numbers. Mellomama: Interesting point and I was wondering about that too. It seems to ring true with history. When the state attempts to take care of everything for people, then it is obvious why we see a population boom. Stefan nails this in one of his episodes. However that does not mean that US and similar countries are living the dream population wise, so there is still argument there. Also, a lot of 3rd world countries have population crisis. What about "population" to "available resource" ratio? I am merely suggesting that whether it be by design, or by need, should people start taking population more seriously before all hell breaks lose?