is depopulation the cure [pertaining to mans destruction of

is depopulation the cure [pertaining to mans destruction of the world]?

if we depopulate then generally speaking everything would be better!

  1. carbon footprint; would not matter so much/would effectively be smaller if if we used more energy, thus we could have more without having a negative effect on the planet.

  2. less traffic; ah freedom of the roads!

  3. less people; where ever you go there are lots of people, take a walk in the country or in the woods, go to theme park, club or restaurant and there are always loads of people. can a man get no peace. in england you don’t get countryside so much anymore, if i were a giant i could take a step in any direction and crunch a house beneath my feet.

  4. ‘sardine fever’ [a theory in progress]; when you get to many people in one place it condenses everything, kinda like that feeling you get on the tube or anywhere that is packed. after a while it causes frustrations to arise and erases our individuality from which many crimes are born.

  5. a real eden! could we make this world into an eden ~ a world of plenty for all, where there are wide open spaces and the distribution of wealth is fair? eventually doesn’t truth have to reign?

just ideas, what do you think ~ is depopulation a solution and perhaps in the long term the only one?

Ask the Chinese. I’m sure they’ll tell you no.

If only people could shrink
Our world wouldn’t be so overcrowded
Bring ourselves down to size
There’d be so much more food to go 'round

Why don’t we build a machine
With all the know-how of the industries
We put a man on the moon
On earth we’ll need more room to breathe real soon

Drink your vaccine and let’s shrink
And bring your poodle so it doesn’t eat us
The roads will be so wide
No traffic jams when we’re half a foot tall
Bring what you need down here
We’ll shrink it all by microwave
Don’t wanna die like dinosaurs
We’ll have enough resources to go round


So now you’ve made the big shrink
Meanwhile we’ll keep acting big
We well-bred beautiful people
Who says we have to go too?
Cops and Mason businessmen
Were exempted from the ovens
As if you weren’t already.
The rest of you are all our termites now

Oh -Dead Kennedys


hi :slight_smile:
imp - i didnt recognise that DK’S lyric ~ it must have gone into my head when i was younger lols.

they would have it better too [if they depopulated] and besides england has the same population density as china or india! so i can say as an englishman ‘yes’.

if you refer to the implementation i.e. one child per family [do they still go by that at all?] then yes the problem is how can we achieve depopulation without affecting personal rights.

perhaps extremes as ever are not the way. a gradual decrease where families are limited to say 4 children would suffice in the long term ~ if we have that luxury!

What would justify killing millions of people for depopulation?

It seems like an inevitability in my estimation. The U.N. estimates that the world population will be over 9 billion by 2050. The world population was less than 2 billion in 1900, to put that in perspective. It just seems so unsustainable.

The problem with depopulation is that the standard of living you are used to would invariably be reduced, as well as the inevitable loss of cultural identity. Economies would suffer. Here in Scotland, the population has been on a steady decline since the 1980’s, with a brief revival at the start of the 1990’s. it is only through immigration from the newly joined EU states, Poland, Bulgaria, etc., that has seen a rise in population over the last 3 years. Birth rate for 2005, (the last years I can find figures for) was 10.7/1000 and the death rate was 11/1000. Essentially Scotland is being propped up by foreign labour. Personally I don’t have a problem with this, but the fact remains that the economy would suffer if the population fell. Obviously this is a small example in the scale of the world, but similar effects would be felt from country to country.

The key issue is deciding on a optimum population level. Too many cost too much to maintain, too few don’t make enough money.

Such a scheme would never be achieved worldwide. And yes it is very much implemented in China, both rurally and in urban centres, exceptions are made, but these are just that; exceptions. Relevant problems to this phenomena, are high illegal and unsafe abortion rates, rising infanticide, and a growing generation of ‘spoiled single children’ who have not developed essential social skills through the means of family. Plus a strain on the smaller younger generation to care for an ageing generation above them.

Again, all dependent on finding that magic number. 4 kids per family is quite a lot. I think the average in Britain is slightly above 2. It was 2.4 about 5 years ago, but I’m sure its fallen since.

Not a lot. Perhaps global warming will address the problem and provide a natural Malthusian check. Best get that condo in the hills ready.

Unsustainable by who’s standards? Sure 9 billion people can’t all live like you and me, but the world could support 9 billion people live on a purely hand to mouth survival.

Either standard of living drops, or the population drops.

Yeah much obliged that condo is looking nice :sunglasses:

Elevation of all the people to middle class status, or at least secure, would reduce the need for wide spread killing.

Industrialized, affluent countries are demonstrating that population will control itself if the people are secure, educated, concerned about the welfare and advantages they will be able to provide for their children, and selfish.

If humans sense that their children are less likely to survive they tend to make more of them, instinctively. Of course the more educated a person, the more likely they are to not want to subject a child to the existence available.

I think the one family, one child thing, is an example of the effectiveness of that sort of government. While it seems unreasonable and extreme, it is functional, and reduces the need to kill existing humans, which I would prefer to avoid.

I can think of some unreasonable and extreme things I’m subjected to in this system, so I suppose you have to put up with some stuff you don’t like everywhere.

There is still a lot of open space to live in, if you can get water and work there.

I think the main problem stems, not from too many children being born, but too many people living, who without the extraordinary efforts of our highly advanced medical systems, who be dead. I’m not talking about 25 year old drive by shooting injuries, I’m talking about 70-80 year old’s being kept alive by drugs, transplants and machines.

We’ve advanced medicine to a level so high, that people are living beyond their natural means.

I’m not advocating going round and bumping off all the old codgers, but I do think this is the root of the problem, not, as some people think, a rising birth rate.

logan’s run


fox affinity

you don’t have to kill them, the idea is to ‘depopulate’ [not give birth to] not commit genocide.


indeed! and as they all become richer they use more resources and throw more stuff away.


it may have to be reduced, perhaps we would be happier if we lived simpler lives ~ the rat race is not good for you. as to culture; i would think that the opposite is true? the more you add the less you have, people become unidividualised by masses, ideas of culture become increasingly vacuous.

true until we are in crisis, then it may be too late.

does this not balance out after a few generations?

yes. i was thinking 4 as it is quite acceptable and would annoy catholic’s lols. seriously i was just skimming the top off. perhaps two is better.


lols, maybe raise the age limit a tad. lets hope that a way to stop aging isn’t found, hmm we would have to implement it then!

How do you plan on inforcing it?

Try telling that to the masses of the western world. And I’m not simply talking about material possessions. Sanitation, health care, transport, public amenities would all be reduced or cut out. On the plus side though, they would be increased or introduced for the people currently living in poverty.

Theoretically the problem would ease off, but if every couple were only allowed one child, then the next generation would be roughly half the size of the previous. So there will always be an abundance of elderly.

That’s an unrealistic scenario, though. We all know that by 2050 there will most likely still be the haves and have nots with regards to poverty. The issue of fresh water and land for agriculture/animals will also be a huge issue. I see a pandemic of sorts as the result of lack of necessities and overcrowding a definite possibility in my lifetime. Currently, humanity puts its faith in science to solve the totality of the problem before any such crisis come, but I’m skeptical. The Western philosophy of the environment as some cash cow for the past few centuries simply does not ensure humanity’s long term survival.


true. it doesn’t have to be quite so manic as e.g. in england. alternately you can carry on with everything we have but less of it, you could spread england all over europe or any given population over a wider area in a sense.

perhaps we can have 90% of the benefits we have today, just cut down on excess.

the main point is that it probably isn’t a choice!

well yes if you carried on you would virtually exterminate yourself after some time. the idea is that once you get down to an ‘ideal’ population level then you can put the number up to say 2 or 3 and keep the whole thing balanced. as usual it is the long term benefits are better that the short term, unfortunately the way we live today it works the other way around.


i agree entirely. we will also need a lot of land to grow fuel as oil runs out [or is harder to get at]. can we grow an earth friendly fuel though? if there were say, ancient levels of population, we could probable use bio fuels for ever or at least until we know what the long term effects are. in my view the earth can cope with a lot, so we just need to keep a little beneath that threshold.

we are so advanced and so intelligent, thence can we not even do the most obvious thing to give our grand children the same privileges that we have?

‘life is a legacy’

I’m not sure that would go down to well with the Germans, Spanish or French!

I agree though that society is extremely wasteful, getting people to heed the ‘reduce, reuse, recycle’ message would be one step forward.

If we take on policies of depopulation our grandchildren will not have the same privileges as us anyway due to the negative effects on the economy.

There is plenty of land and resources available, we just need to utilise them. If industry moves to these areas, the working population will follow. Similarly alternate fuels and methods of power are available, they just aren’t ‘cost effective’.


ha, no. what i meant was that in terms of populations, you could spread england [or france etc] around europe ~ as the same amount of industry health car and population size.

not in the short term no they wont. but in the long term they could [see above]. indeed if moneys were better distributed we could all be a lot better off. i know that in the current climate the system works by giving to the rich, but it doesn’t have to be like that ~ or at least not to the same degree.

what ever we do, if we don’t depopulate and people keep getting richer, we will use up the earths resources. recycling is around 80% at best so the more waste the less for future generations. perhaps technology can get around this to some degree, but the basic raw materials are limited.

do you really think star trek technology will get us out of the impending predicament?

anyways something tells me its all too fickle, soon there will be a recession then perhaps a depression then turmoil. i don’t want to sound like some harbinger of doom as i am generally positive, but with everyone up to their hilt in debt and high mortgages it wont take much for a massive tumble ~ we’ll see. i was talking to some builders down the pub and they reckon some people are charging 1980’s prices to get work, maybe it is the time of year but it wasnt like that before christmass. this shows how it don’t take long for people to get desperate.

hmm did i go off topic there lols, well my point is that it wont take much for the system to collapse - probably.

Not wanting to sound too hippy, but solar, wind, tidal power are all viable methods that are not utilised fully. Similarly with bio-fuels. It’s amazing what technologies one could come up with if there’s money to be made, but when saving the planet is concerned, where’s the attraction!