How do u think what will happen to humanity when we will be out of the natural sources like coal and oil or, the land that we can use for agricultural needs? Will we eat each other?
In a case where humanity is limited in sources, would the artificial control of the human population be justified? E.g. a virus which makes 90%-80% of people infertile?
It won’t come to that. We’ve already basically solved all of the problems you mention above, we just have not deployed the solutions on a large scale because other methods are easier or preferred.
Coil and oil : we no longer need either for anything but mobile vehicles. If it came down to it, we could replace all cars (eventually) with some form of electric train, whether it be car like vehicles that use ultracapacitors and flit from inductive charge pad to charge pad, or vehicles that ride a third rail all around town. The energy to power everything would come from nuclear, wind, and solar. Airplanes would be a rare luxury as the fuel would have to be made synthetically from CO2 and water.
We no longer need land for food, we can just do this or this.
We don’t have to use some crazy bioweapon, we could just install birth control implants in both gendersand make becoming pregnant no longer an implicit human right, but a privilege that has to be earned. Graduate from college and make a certain amount of money? You can have the implant legally removed. Every toilet would contain sensors to detect the hormones in the urine of potentially pregnant women to catch law evaders.
I don’t know why “making as many kids as I feel like” has somehow become a human “right”. Every child is a possible burden on the state, and the least successful citizens are often the ones making the most kids. Also, due to exponential growth, it can’t work out - if a family has kids super early, and those kids have kids, and those kids have kids, pretty soon the only people around are going to be descendents of those families as they crowd out everyone else. This is the *real *reason conservatives are against welfare - it allows certain poor people to have limitless kids as the welfare is just enough to survive.
i dont see population control as a moral issue. it will need ot be done at some point.
It’s already doing itself. Every culture starts having fewer kids as economic conditions and education levels improve.
Yes, but not evenly. Think about what the optimal solution looks like.
- People are born.
- The minimum resources are invested in getting the new people to breeding age
- The breeders breed just as soon as they can carry a child to term
- The breeders select sperm from the fittest males instead of all the males
- Males compete with each other for fitness. Some of them are removed from the gene-pool but the other males do double duty
- Fit males don’t mess around - they mate right away (skeet skeet skeet) and move on to the next female
- Back to #1
The individuals doing this do the minimum effort outside of breeding/raising kids in order to run loop #1-#7. This is because any effort over the minimum is effort not going into #1-#7.
The “minimum effort” solution is filling out welfare forms, selling illegal pharmaceuticals as a profession (because it is the best ratio of income versus effort), and working low end jobs as needed.
Both white trash and blacks follow this strategy. Is it a good thing for them to become the predominant population? You tell me. #5 is the reason why mass incarceration of (mostly black) drug dealers in poor areas is ineffective, they only need to be free long enough to get a few women pregnant in between stretches of prison time. Or, their brothers who were not caught do all the breeding. Their children (little shorties) take up the family trade.
Racist much?
Thanks for outing yourself so clearly. I’ll take that into account wherever else I read your commentary.
Most drug dealers make less than minimum wage. Being a narco kingpin is a very high-stress occupation.
Yeah, I read that bit in Freakonomics. Lol at the “racist” comment above. I’m just advancing a hypothesis that fits together reasonably well.
Another Luddite Malthusian
To be fair, lots of very lengthy texts talk about how hydrocarbon fuel is critical, how arable land and fresh water are resources worth fighting wars over as there is only so much, and so on and so forth. I remember it seemed incredible to me years ago that we might be able to just grow all the food indoors in algae vats - I assumed it would be unaffordable to do it that way. I didn’t know that algae grows hyper-fast and is orders of magnitude more efficient and faster than human food crops.
There’s a lot of Handwavium here. But I find this one particularly interesting.
How do you plan to impose mandatory sterilization on at least 7 billion people (maybe twice that by the time this becomes an issue)?
To put it in perspective. The Nazis tried something similar in the 30s and 40s. The best they could do with the entirety of their industrial might is to kill about 17 million people. Around 60 million people were killed as a result of a lot of people thinking this was a bad idea. About 3% of the world population at the time.
Granted we have a lot better weapons and industrial technology these days. But the point is (presuming you don’t want to use nuclear weapons), it’s pretty hard to put a dent into the world population. Not for lack of trying.
Ultimately, the usual famine, disease, exacerbated by war will lead to a smaller population.