Lets have a global "one child" policy

[Atheist-Lite]

Who needs a policy like that when a small glass vial can solve the problem of human over-population forever?

[surreptitious57]

Enforced suicide is morally indefensible but if we hang
around for an other five billion years the Sun will do
the job for us when it implodes and reduces both
we and everything else on the planet to sub
atomic dust which is what we came from
in the first place so a nice little take
on the eternal cycle of life there

[Rum]

Anybody see the Start Trek TNG episode where the Enterprise hosts a scientist from a planet whose culture expects everyone to ritualistically commit suicide when they reach age 60? Something like that might help. Maybe when we get to age 75 we could be expected to go jump off a cliff. The US spends about two and a half times as much on eldery people as it does on children. By the time you're in your 70s, you're just sucking up medical costs and pensions.

Super-brilliant, right?

Unless you happen to be 75 of course.

But the OP is right of course. We used to live off the interest of the 'natural capital' of the planet. We are currently eating up the actual capital at an increasing rate and there will be a crash if we don't pull up. I have read that around 3 billion is the absolute maximum in terms of sustainability. Its a tough target and one I suspect we won't reach without assistance from the planet biting is very hard on the arse.

[Hermit]

If we adopted China's one child policy, millions or billions of prospective parents will abort an embryo as soon as they find out that it is female. The gender imbalance will create huge ructions. Cutting out legislation that subsidises children is a good idea, though. Education, as mentioned previously, even better.

I have read that around 3 billion is the absolute maximum in terms of sustainability.

That number would depend on what level of consumption we indulge in. For example, if three billion people insisted on having the living standards of the USA and Europe, that population would be well in excess of sustainable existence.

Not that I am exempt. My town can be traversed by car in about 15 minutes, yet I hardly ever use my pushbike to get around in it.

[Pappa]

Anybody see the Start Trek TNG episode where the Enterprise hosts a scientist from a planet whose culture expects everyone to ritualistically commit suicide when they reach age 60? Something like that might help. Maybe when we get to age 75 we could be expected to go jump off a cliff. The US spends about two and a half times as much on eldery people as it does on children. By the time you're in your 70s, you're just sucking up medical costs and pensions.

Super-brilliant, right?

Dinosaurs did the same theme. "Hurling Day": http://www.imdb.com/rg/em_share/rt_ipho ... /tt0760613

[mistermack]

The thing about old people is that they don't CONSUME so much as the young. All you need is a telly and a bowl of porridge in the morning, and a half of Guinness, once a week.
They don't need big houses and big cars.

And anyway, after an extensive calculation on a high powered computer, I've worked out that more young people causes more old people later on.

But yeh, remove ANY benefit for having kids. Us old buggers will just have to do more for ourselves. That don't bother me.

[Tero]

We'll have all kinds of old people. You are to report for bedpan duty FRI for the 12h shift, mister.

All the rest of you sign up as well. Bring a cot. You will get 3 hours of sleep. Unless Mr Johnson has nightmares.

[Drewish]

Super virus! Super virus!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You mean "Logan's Run", right?

[Coito ergo sum]

If we were REALLY serious about saving the planet, we should do what China did.

Spread it right round the world. If you're going to have loads of kids, you have to pay the price.
What's more important? Freedoms today, or a viable planet for the next 100 years?

Right now, people obviously don't take the threat to the planet seriously, or they would be willing to give up having big families. So it's time for the law to take over, and remove ALL incentives to breed more than one child. ie, remove all state benefits over and above the amount for one. As a start.

How about just stopping child subsidies?

No more tax credits and deductions, and government payments rewarding people for having kids.

Given that western birth rates are already pretty low, that should put us into a decreasing population mode.

[Drewish]

If we were REALLY serious about saving the planet, we should do what China did.

Spread it right round the world. If you're going to have loads of kids, you have to pay the price.
What's more important? Freedoms today, or a viable planet for the next 100 years?

Right now, people obviously don't take the threat to the planet seriously, or they would be willing to give up having big families. So it's time for the law to take over, and remove ALL incentives to breed more than one child. ie, remove all state benefits over and above the amount for one. As a start.

How about just stopping child subsidies?

No more tax credits and deductions, and government payments rewarding people for having kids.

Given that western birth rates are already pretty low, that should put us into a decreasing population mode.

Woah! but then parents who are irresponsible will have children who will suffer for their parents' mistakes! We can't solve this problem by reducing legislation and programs. We need to create additional laws and agencies that mandate a particular approach to family planning and force equal family size on everyone!

[Coito ergo sum]

If we were REALLY serious about saving the planet, we should do what China did.

Spread it right round the world. If you're going to have loads of kids, you have to pay the price.
What's more important? Freedoms today, or a viable planet for the next 100 years?

Right now, people obviously don't take the threat to the planet seriously, or they would be willing to give up having big families. So it's time for the law to take over, and remove ALL incentives to breed more than one child. ie, remove all state benefits over and above the amount for one. As a start.

How about just stopping child subsidies?

No more tax credits and deductions, and government payments rewarding people for having kids.

Given that western birth rates are already pretty low, that should put us into a decreasing population mode.

Woah! but then parents who are irresponsible will have children who will suffer for their parents' mistakes! We can't solve this problem by reducing legislation and programs. We need to create additional laws and agencies that mandate a particular approach to family planning and force equal family size on everyone!

Oh, yes, that's right. We need to pay people to have children, and then prohibit other people from having children. This way, people who aren't permitted to have children would be forced to pay for those who are.... makes sense.

And, let's not even get started on the "it's my body, my choice" argument.

[MiM]

That would wreak total havoc with the dependency ratio, unless alleviated by some use of the suggestion by Ian. At least over here, already having a birth rate of a little under 2, together with long life expectancies, is currently leading to a huge build up of old people, that are in need of care. And to the contrary of what Mistermack claims, that care is expensive. If I remember correctly half of the medical expenses during a lifetime is typically used during the last three months of life.

The problem really is that many countries, just don't take their responsibility. I have a counter suggestion. Let's set an upper limit on population density. For example, no country would be allowed to exceed 20 persons /sq.km. That would be roughly equivalent to 3 billion people altogether.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Soylent Green. Just sayin'.

[Robert_S]

That would wreak total havoc with the dependency ratio, unless alleviated by some use of the suggestion by Ian. At least over here, already having a birth rate of a little under 2, together with long life expectancies, is currently leading to a huge build up of old people, that are in need of care. And to the contrary of what Mistermack claims, that care is expensive. If I remember correctly half of the medical expenses during a lifetime is typically used during the last three months of life.

I wonder how much it really benefits anyone getting all that medical attention just then.