About two years ago I questioned whether it was time to consider overpopulation as part of the climate change problem and acting to control population growth. This inevitably attracted accusations that I was an advocate of eugenics. My critics do not understand the difference between eugenics and birth control of course but that was expected.
Here’s another chance to see the provocatively titled post Time to stop the pond life breeding
Every human life consumes resources that are becoming more scarce as the global population increases of course and the idea that we should impose birth control on those who refuse to practice it voluntarily or behave responsibly is catching on. Here’s an article from Huffungton Post that explores the same question. Are there just too many people – Huffington Post
Little Nicky Machiavelli 
I totally agree. I dont understand how people can blindly blunder onwards believing having children is ok. When it comes down to it we have a choice: Either we stop breeding voluntarily to reduce the population, or we are forced to endure deaths by the millions as the inevitable horror of warfare, plague and famine descends upon humanity.
However if any government sees sense and imposes breeding restrictions, the only way to do it fairly is by lottery.
I theorised that only 1 in 3 couples should be allowed to breed once (they get a 2nd chance, obviously, if their child dies before maturity) If these lucky couples wish, they can give away or sell that right to another, however 1 in 3 should be the rule.
The only other solution I could see possibly working is periods of ‘non-gestation.’ Everyone is, of course, allowed at least 1 child, however 5 years out of every ten are considered ‘barren years’ in which no child birth is allowed. I think after 50 years the amount of people dying in those 5 year ‘gaps’ would level out the populace somewhat, of course the exact numbers could be adjusted. This option is preferable in giving almost everyone the chance at reproducing, however it would cause more potential problems in terms of the inevitable ‘forced abortions’ that might occur in those 5 year periods.
In a way all this is slightly facistical, but reiterating, surely it is clearly less facistical than the inevitable actions that would occur in a grossly overpopulated world?
LikeLike
Thank you for your posts-
they’re inspirirng; keep up the thought
LikeLike
Soylent Green… Fascistic? I understand people’s reverence for life, but really, thinking needs to change, or we’ll be fighting each other on a three-deep carpet of human corpses before we know it…
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070723/
LikeLike
I’m being thick as usual.
It seems to me that its not so much the number of people that is the problem, as how they are all squished together in little pockets in the world.
If they were spread out better there would be a better life for people.
If there was a more agrarian world economy instead of a parasitic one, people growing their own food and being a bit more like The Good Life. People encouraged and supported to support themselves – not being given benefits to sit at home being wastes of space and energy.
Oh well – what will be will be.
LikeLike
With views like that you risk the wrath of the Church Of Scienceology Cult who would welcome the day when we all have chips impanted in our brains to turn us into droids. I agree with you, but to say so on popular commen blogs gets me accused of wanting to return to a medieval lifestyle (oh yeah, Black Plague, the Inquisition, let’s have it all back)
We do need to get back to more labour intensive industries so that people have meaningful work. So many jobs now have no meaning which is a big stress inducer.
But sadly the population problem is not just a question of spreading people out, if only it was.
Most of the uninhabited areas of the world are uninhabited because tey would not support human societies.
Good comment though, thanks.
LikeLike