Population Control

[bschu]

There are mental meanderings, although I am serious, just curious if you have thoughts to share on this topic or what you think of my hypothesis here.

 

What about population control? They do it in China out of necessity, I lived there for over ten years and I can tell you that as an American from a small hometown my daily thoughts and observations were over what a mess "population" can cause. Literally of course, because a "mess" is created pollution-wise, but also so many problems such as cramming kids into classrooms, public transportation, lines at the hospital, and of course all of the socialism which comes with it, which in this particular argument I am not saying is innately a bad thing (socialism), but the type of stress put on a highly populated society is noteworthy, and socialism seems to be the only order which can thrive in this environment.

 

On the other side of a the coin, well populated cities are meccas for business, advancement, lifestyle, etc. - I get that, but that is not what is happening. We are not "cultivating" big cities in many places around the world, what we are doing is actually watching them grow out of control like weeds over a garden, and then fighting to put on a front of being useful and productive so as to gain favor from central government and win investment capital.

 

My thoughts are about the concept of stopping this phenomenon before it occurs, or to even just observe it for what it is. But I rarely find people willing to address the matter, which I think is a mistake resulting from an underestimation of the severity of the problem, and a major lack of maturity to face the facts that people will simply reproduce rampantly.

 

So what about population control as a way of life for people, cities, societies - with the intention of trying to maintain an ideal population for their cause? Pros and Cons? I think just pros but would love to hear any cons.

 

So firstly, where did the population come from? Nature used to control us, but modern medicine caused a population boom. So dealing with long lasting, dense populations at this degree is sort of a new thing for modern societies, but we don't talk about it much. Most people likely assume that healing and living are all good things and "the lives of people are not mine to judge or control, so let it be."

 

But... If that is true then stop making medicine and making the population boom, and, do we really want to state something like "the more the merrier" when people need to stress so hard to live such meager lives? Now it is like "sardine packed super humans", backed by modern medicine and/or drugs, living only to work like mules for a two bedroom apartment and a mobile phone. What would have been a perfectly intelligent and capable person at a farm or living free in a mountain-style life, is now labelled a moron, rejected by society, and pumped full of drugs to maintain a labor job, or stuff into a cubicle, or maybe even imprisoned as a result of their inability to keep up with city life.

 

So I start to imagine ways to control this type of phenomenon. What about following the traditions of marriage and taking responsibility for your children? This obviously opens a can of worms in today's political world, but just think it through anyway. Notice how people, when taking full responsibility for a child's life, start to have less children as a result. And by taking full responsibility they have relieved so much stress from the government to begin with, and, even more stress relieved via the absence of so many "troubled people" coming out the wood work. Well raised children. Better society.

 

Keep thinking along those lines, and WOW, how many problems have been solved, and how much improvement has been made on the lives of individuals.

 

There is likely a problem with this hypothesis of course, probably many problems. Does humanity continue well with "controlled breeding"? (for lack of a better word) - It works for dogs, but we are not dogs. And while we are on that topic, how about the ethics of telling people whether or not they can have kids and/or how many?

 

People who know nothing about China complain (no surprise) about China's One Child Policy. I find China's policy to be quite reasonable actually. They simply state that due to the condition, you can have a child, but if you have more than one then you will pay a "tax", or what might be considered a "fine". Is that not reasonable for a country with a population crisis?

 

But what if such a policy where added to smaller cities in a country like the US, "before" the population gets too big? What about taxing people who have children out of wedlock to encourage them take responsibility for their children? And with that tax going towards education.  Since it is clear that dense populations have so frequently led to so many problems for so many lives, is it not better to address the issue? If not even just acknowledge it as a viable human concern?

 

I think the only thing holding us back from growing on this understanding is a religious mentality that some higher power should be in charge of who gets born and who doesn't.  ... Really? So people don't "decide" to get married and "decide" to have kids?

 

I'm just saying, if you are going to have a garden, tend to it.

 

Thoughts?

 

Also does anyone know of any further reading materials, preferably books or research materials on this subject?

 

[Will Torbald]

People are not plants. I don't know where you get your gardening fantasies, but the idea of enforced population control is going to have to pass the "enforced" part first to be a credible argument.

[Mister Mister]

I agree with Will.  Also there is the calculation problem: how many children should people have? who should have them? what is the right number for total population?  these are unanswerable questions.

[bschu]

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?

[things make sense]

a little off topic but I thought it might be useful for some

[bschu]

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.

[Susana]

The Population Research Institute

https://www.pop.org/

Also how could there possibly be too many people? too many sociopaths in charge; probably. Too many people? I invite you to become a hermit where no doubt you will be scrounging around in the dirt or something, greatly suffering from a lack of other people to enable you to thrive and survive.

[Will Torbald]

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?

Debating population control with a misanthropist is highly unproductive. I'm never going to get anywhere if you are already presupposing that people holding to live together in close proximity is bad. Your sophistry of the supposed nuances of subtly encouraging people through taxation is so weak, I mean, do you know where you are debating this? I live in a highly dense and populated city of over three million people. I wouldn't trade it for anything else.

[bschu]

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!

 

[Will Torbald]

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!

 

Well, I'm sorry to be so stern at the beginning because I really don't want to give this more thought that it needs to. Terms like "optimal" and "controlled" are so vague that they really don't mean anything. It's just preference. Some people would say that X is more optimal, or that Y is more optimal. The only viable answer is who cares and those who don't like cities can go live elsewhere. The only reason cities cannot develop naturally and with the space they would choose "optimally" is because of government regulations, they decide where to build the roads, the sewers, the wiring, and so on. A city under statism cannot evolve naturally, so you get the cramps you complain about. That's all.

[bschu]

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!

[Torero]

Hi bschu,

 

a very interesting problem you describe here and one of the greatest challenges of mankind (especially if the Subsaharan African population keeps rising).

 

Some background: I was born and raised in one of the most densely populated countries in the world (yet with only small and for Chinese standards tiny cities); the Netherlands.

Now I am happily living in one of the biggest cities in the world; the capital of Colombia with 8-14 (met area) million people. Visited other huge cities like Tehran, Mexico DF, Lima, Istanbul, Moscow and more.

 

I don't know China yet and the country and food appeal for a tourist visit but indeed those mass cities with the enormous pollution are not very attractive, to put it mildly.

 

----

 

Your question; "has the one-child policy of China been right?" is an interesting one. From a statist perspective, where you "have to organize" a country, I fear the answer is "yes". We couldn't imagine how China would have been now without it (some Nigeria++ probably).

 

From a human, social and moral perspective it's of course not right. People shouldn't be forced by others on the most essential part of our lives; the creation and raising of offspring. The social problems created in the Chinese society (and please correct me here; I only get some news articles on the country while you know it well first-hand) on the huge disparity between males and females, the exceptions the powerful people organized for themselves and even murdering girls deemed "less worthy" for the parents is a humanitarian disaster.

 

A drastic change in world view for me is the knowledge mankind will always be kept to Earth as space travel is impossible. That makes a huge difference in how we look at the world and I switched off the video on the "Overpopulation Myth" when the -obviously smart; a PhD in nuclear engineering is not for the unintelligent- guest was introduced on the "Mars society". We cannot get there, so we only have 1 Earth and that's it.

 

In theory the Earth can hold many many many more people than the 7+ billion we have today or the 10+ billion projected at the end of this century. But that also means the resources we have, have to be shared (not "divided", leftist statists!) by many many many more people.

 

People talking about a "post-scarce society" (like the Zeitgeist commies) are not getting it; you cannot just mine some 1000 tons of a precious rare Earth mineral because you need it for all the free stuff you give away... Resources are finite and interests infinite, so we have to cope with that.

 

The crapitalist system we live in now actually is harmful to that; statism (by government debt; state slavery for the next generations) is draining the Earth much faster than the resources itself value. One of the best examples is oil, now almost given away for free with a mere 30 dollars for 159 liters of crude. That is 10 times cheaper than something simple as beer (or bottled water). Crazy; the stuff is worth much more, not only in intrinsic value (caloric and the wide range of use for it), but also in terms of costs (drilling an exploration well -and then you don't even know you will produce- is extremely expensive, up to 250 million dollars in extreme cases).

 

Also statism due to its tax farming needs is actually promoting having more children (especially for the lower classes of society) using child benefits/welfare paid for by others' stolen money.

 

The more people the Earth has to host, feed and provide with luxury, the harder it becomes. Mankind is inventive, so we will cope with it somehow, but that doesn't mean it's a bright future, especially if we want to keep our living standards and not give up our (Western) lifestyles because there's billions of more people to feed, clothe, shelter and provide more.

 

A dramatic example of this social disaster is the remote island of Rapa Nui where overpopulation (and no possibility for regeneration or moving to other islands; 3000 kms away!) has produced conflicts in society there. How it exactly has happened is quite a mystery due to the lack of written history, but the consensus is that overpopulation has produced food and especially water shortages, leading to collapses in society, extinction of precious flora and fauna, cannibalism and literal collapses of the huge moais on the island.

 

Just some thoughts, tell me what you think.

[Sima]

if there were no public schools and  no public healthcare,

then people would understand that it is quite expensive to have many children.

Because they would have to pay for those things themselves.

people with higher income naturally could have more children.

And because now half of our income goes to taxes for government, i think without being taxed,  a couple would get double income therefore could afford minimum easily 2 children. I heard most of this ideas  in Stefans videos sometime ago.

[bschu]

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.

[Torero]

Quotes of your text are in red; maximum number of quote boxes.

 

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." ....

And how many people can we healthily cram into a bedroom? The state is in fact already making law on this.

 

Please don't mind me asking, but do you then agree with "states making laws for maximum bedroom occupation [and the privacy-damaging checks of that law]" while you say "statism is not to be seen as 'ideal'"? I find that contradictory.

 

Recommendations are of course not force, so ok. But I think in a free society those recommendations are redundant; the lack of back-up by forcing states would make people more conscious about their family size decisions. See Stefans "The Truth About Single Moms" for strong arguments; the State stepping in to provide money, food (stamps) and housing for mothers who can just breed on without consciously thinking if they can support such large families...

 

I think there is no argument regarding that "any" population so dense will face these same problems.

 

The "same" problems I don't think so. You describe cultural and statist propagandist "values" or behaviours; people hitting their children and extreme "Streber" mentality. Streber is also a word in English? It means people excessively driven to perform, but to an unhealthy level.

 

That overcrowded societies cause social problems, yes, definitely.

 

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,

 

Ehhhhh.... Describing "Chairman" Mao as "the George Washington" of China to me is outlandish. Come on, this born peasant has murdered millions and millions of people, either direct (as a psychopath leader killing his own even trusted people) or indirect (by his policies, land reforms, having intellectuals killed, destroying literacy rates, demolishing education, confucianist religion, etc., etc., etc.).

 

You wouldn't call Josif Stalin the "George Washington" of (modern) Russia, nor Pol Pot the "George Washington" of Cambodia or Idi Amin the "George Washington" of Uganda....   

 

The principles of the United States of America, the Constitution, etc. are FAR FAR off the extremely brutal slaughter of communist China, come on!

 

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.

 

I'd say that the "state message" of freaking Mao was going a slight small microscopically minute bit further than this... It must have been horrible to live under that system. Stalin, Castro, Chavez and Hitler were little boy scouts compared to what Mao has done to his "own" peoples (the various cultures that now make up China).

 

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.

 

Not one example?!

 

Like crapitalism (crony-capitalism; credits Stefan) is unnecessarily draining Earth's resources, statism is unnecessarily providing the back-up for overpopulation:

 

- welfare

- children's support even for families not on welfare (so in essence it's welfare as well)

- statist-controlled importation of millions of people (the "immigration" crisis in Europe as dramatic example)

 

It's the essential root of the whole system; tax farming. So have as many people as possible to steal wealth from.

 

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!

 

I forgot to include "serious". Monaco, Singapore, island states are not "serious countries". Only Bangladesh (not an example of a "perfect world", I'd say...), South Korea (not too bad I reckon) and Taiwan (island state, but sufficient in size) are denser populated than the Netherlands. And the history of the country also makes it a serious country; no matter the small size, the Dutch empire and trade companies were all over the world (just like Portugal, a small country with a huge empire spanning over all continents).

 

Brooklyn and Harlem are named after two Dutch towns; Breukelen & Haarlem. There are many more examples in the Eastern US. South Africa, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Tasmania (after Tasman), the Dutch West Indies & Guyanas, etc. etc.

 

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!

 

Not communist, but very socialist. That goes deeper than just the size of the government and taxation (both are huge in Holland), but is more cultural/social as well. Here I've outlined that before.

 

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.

 

Faith has no place in a natural-scientific debate, but this topic is not about space. It's not optimism/pessimism; I am very optimistic. Just not falling for lies. And indeed; it makes the whole world view a different one; "this Earth is all we will ever have" versus "we can just drain the Earth, breed like r-type rabbits and then move on to a different planet". It's a dangerous superstition (and Hawkins is just a puppet for the perpetrators) that we could do that...

 

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.

 

There are some advantages to bigger cities, otherwise people wouldn't move there. In terms of job opportunities, freedom of choice in stores, educational facilities, hospitals, etc. it is advantageous to live in a bigger city.

 

But to answer your question: spreading out is restricted by the same statist "laws" that are the problem in the first place. We are not allowed to just start building a community somewhere (and less in the West where more rules are enforced). The state prohibits just making your own nicely spread out city somewhere where you like it (and your friends/fellow New Spread Out Citizens too).

 

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.

 

Water is not so much of a problem. It's natural and formed every day. The distribution of water is a different thing, and so is the over-use of it. In Dubai there's a shopping mall with a freaking ice skating track in it. With 50 degrees (Celsius) outside, it's possible to ice-skate inside in a nicely cooled (air conditioning) environment. Decadence.

 

Water is a virtually endless resource (not only on the surface; also the Earth's crust is filled with water) and desalination is a proven technology. Water in essence is not the problem.

 

But you cannot build technology from water. You need ores (metals, semi-metals, etc.) and in our petroleum-based society oil and those are not infinite. Not that tomorrow it's not there anymore (alarmism is not the point), but by definition it's finite.

 

Real supply-and-demand pricing (which would result from a non-fiat currency free society) naturally would solve that. The current system is rigged in terms of prices of resources. For oil, see here.

 

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?!

 

"Provided for" is statist speech. I think we people, evolved from apes, are very well capable of providing things ourselves. It's the violent apes (statists) who want to "arrange" that into laws and rules and "divide [and conquer]", "provide", etc. that has no moral basis.

 

But of course, I like you bringing this topic up, as it's very interesting and a bit of a taboo as well.

[bschu]

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.

[Torero]

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.

 

...

 

Thanks for the good talk.

 

It may get "lengthy" but I just think that's because it's new to you (15 posts) and it's important. Good to discuss anyway.

 

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.

 

Really? Think about it actually in your everyday life: if you have a problem like this with your neighbour; do you call the state (the police as enforcing unit) or do you talk to your neighbour (at least first!)?

 

That's what I am saying; we people know how to live together (or not) best.

 

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.

 

Please, try to step away from large-scale "eliminating the state" ideas. We will not "eliminate" or "abolish" the state. What we can do however is to live life differently; set a good example for others. And philosophy via the womb; Stefans 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.

 

That's like saying; "we live in a slavery situation, maybe I can convince the slave owner to become reasonable". It's a useless path. Still a reasonable thief is a thief. Still a reasonable rapist is a rapist. Still a reasonable slave owner supports slavery.

 

Why not step away (not: trying to "abolish" something, just step away) and do the things between humans? No force or violence, yet peaceful win-win negotiations?

 

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...

 

Sorry to be nitpicking, but not "anarchy", yet "anarchism". Anarchy is statist labeling. Anarchy is a state of chaos. Anarchism is not chaos; it's dealing with your fellow humans in a peaceful, non-violent, way. Like most of our interactions are anyway. So the step is much smaller than many think...

 

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!

 

In a situation where states are somehow disappearing, yes. I cannot speak for others, but I think leading by example is the way forward; organising small-scale non-statist communities. So there there won't be problems like "overpopulation".

 

You still seem to adhere to what I call the "utopian trap"; an idea that "EVERYONE should" or other "world-wide plans". It's a useless track to go world-wide when it's not proven on a small-scale. See the utopian trap where I've discussed exactly this difference in view in more detail.

 

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.

 

But that's the whole thing; you and your fellow citizens would never ever go for overpopulation. Imagine you live in a community in Pennsylvania, you don't have the state to back-up your decisions; your decisions are yours and shared between you and your neighbours. Would overpopulation even be a theme? No, of course not; there are limited resources, you and your neighbours wouldn't want 40 stories high skycrapers blocking your view and nobody would be wanting to overpopulate (i.e. have more people than resources). It's a natural thing among reasonable (so based on rational philosophy) thing.

 

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, clear. It indeed sounded quite strange and I am not even USAmerican, while you are. George Washington may well have his flaws, but the scale of mass murder and other domination that Mao showed is really uncomparable. Glad we agree on that, while brainwashed Chinese may not...

 

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.

 

No. Never. Step away from the idea that ANY society (coercive - so statist, or non-coercive - so free) can "guarantee" things. Poverty is widespread, no matter how many years of tax farming went into "solving" the "problem of the poor" under the richest states (Europe, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand).

 

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.

 

I am preparing a topic on a society which actually came close to what a peaceful, non-violent society was. Hold on to your horses. I don't promise it will be this week though...

 

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!

 

Exactly. So the same force "forcing" us to live in big cities ("providing" more choice) is the force that keeps us from organizing ourselves freely...

 

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?!?

 

The thing is; in a true peaceful society those problems would not arise. Think about the r versus K series by Stefan (if you haven't seen them, I really recommend watching it!). If the rabbits are spreading too much, there is no ecosystem anymore.

 

Or in other words; statism forms the "safeguard" to "destroy" our planet. If the Earth were to be your garden; would you really allow for species to get extinct? Or would you care to protect them? If the Amazone rainforest would be owned by people instead of headless states, do you think people would allow others to chop away so much valuable nature? I for one would not allow that if it were mine and I am sure I am not the only person who actually is "environmentally concerned".

[Mister Mister]

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.

I was referring to Mises' Economic Calculation Problem, wherein he argues that Central Planning always fails because it is impossible to answer basic questions of economic allocation without letting free people play things out for themselves.  But you are making a pretty remarkable claim...How many people is enough, or too much?  If you have some way of answering this question, please don't withhold it from us?  Is this an absolute fixed number?  Does it depend on what kind of people?  Will it change with future changes in technology?  I hope you are beginning to see some of the challenges of your position

 

As an aside - One of the big challenges in philosophy is the tendency for intellectual people to focus on the most abstract, farthest away issues on which they have the least control.  This is because pontificating on these issues won't compel you to make any dramatic changes in your life, and aren't likely to bring conflict into any of your relationships - in other words, they are safe. You have no capacity to personally regulate the population of the total planet, and if you did desire this power, I would assume you are a highly disturbed and dangerous person, and would wonder what you are even doing in this corner of the internet.  So I'd have to ask, why is this important to you as far as philosophy and ethics go?

[bschu]

I was referring to Mises' Economic Calculation Problem, wherein he argues that Central Planning always fails because it is impossible to answer basic questions of economic allocation without letting free people play things out for themselves.  But you are making a pretty remarkable claim...How many people is enough, or too much?  If you have some way of answering this question, please don't withhold it from us?  Is this an absolute fixed number?  Does it depend on what kind of people?  Will it change with future changes in technology?  I hope you are beginning to see some of the challenges of your position

 

As an aside - One of the big challenges in philosophy is the tendency for intellectual people to focus on the most abstract, farthest away issues on which they have the least control.  This is because pontificating on these issues won't compel you to make any dramatic changes in your life, and aren't likely to bring conflict into any of your relationships - in other words, they are safe. You have no capacity to personally regulate the population of the total planet, and if you did desire this power, I would assume you are a highly disturbed and dangerous person, and would wonder what you are even doing in this corner of the internet.  So I'd have to ask, why is this important to you as far as philosophy and ethics go?

 

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.

[Mister Mister]

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...

 

It's not a question of being narrow minded, or realistic, but that you are just begging the question.  "uncomfortable", "unhealthy", "limited", and "becomes a problem" are not philosophical terms that can be objectively defined.  They are more aesthetic preferences, which, like any other economic problem, have to be weighed against conflicting preferences according to particular costs and benefits.  These are problems that can only be solved by free people acting peacefully.  A Central Planner can never answer these questions, or solve these problems.  To attempt to do so would be to initiate force against billions of people, which is immoral, and would also provoke unintended consequences, as people never obey laws exactly as lawmakers intend, but rather they adapt to policies - for example the large number of abortions of female fetuses in China as a response to the One Child Policy, and the response of the government to outlaw prenatal sex screening, and what has now become a huge demographic problem of an abundance of young men with no one to marry.  These things tend to escalate and get worse.  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.

[bschu]

"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.

[bschu]

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.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

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.

 

 

This is a vicious and extremely manipulative attack on us. We have not harmed you in any way yet you slander us? Are you really so sensitive about some down-votes that you'll judge thousands of innocent people and paint them as bastard while setting yourself up as a saint. You smear people you don't even know and then expect pity because someone pricked you're hypersensitive balloon? What kind of sociopath are you? 

[bschu]

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/01/465124337/how-chinas-one-child-policy-led-to-forced-abortions-30-million-bachelors?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160202

 

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.

[bschu]

This is a vicious and extremely manipulative attack on us. We have not harmed you in any way yet you slander us? Are you really so sensitive about some down-votes that you'll judge thousands of innocent people and paint them as bastard while setting yourself up as a saint. You smear people you don't even know and then expect pity because someone pricked you're hypersensitive balloon? What kind of sociopath are you? 

 

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.