Should races with birth rates above 2.0 be mandated to have abortions?

[Clarke]

Frequently in the abortion debates the subject arises about the world population and the makeup of the worlds population. With the world getting overpopulated should abortion be mandated for those breeding too much is the thought that crosses minds. Asia has seen a lot of this population growth but also Africa and various other places, parts of Asia at least have themselves under the control but the population may still be too high. Africa still has a very high birth rate. 

Should abortion be mandated for races that are growing too much no matter what country they live in? 

 

Should the world take a more pragmatic approach to the makeup of the worlds population. Should the current populations be maintained or should some percentages be reduced.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Clarke

[Andrezj Kolarov]

Overpopulation is a right-wing myth. There's enough land in the world to support trillions of people, both including land used for dwellings and cultivation, especially when you consider how many people modern high-rise apartment blocks can house, and how much food can be produced with modern industrial agriculture.

 

The problem is that most land in the world is privately owned in enormous unproductive estates and governments are either unwilling or unable to challenge landowners by expropriating land for development or cultivation.

 

Another problem is that suburban development takes up too much land, you've got 1 or 2 story buildings maximum on the land, rather than apartment blocks which take up the space that no-one is using - above.

 

A higher population is a good thing, more people means more workers, which means more goods produced, more things built, and thus greater productivity and growth.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Andrezj Kolarov

[Clarke]

Overpopulation is a right-wing myth. There's enough land in the world to support trillions of people, both including land used for dwellings and cultivation, especially when you consider how many people modern high-rise apartment blocks can house, and how much food can be produced with modern industrial agriculture.

 

The problem is that most land in the world is privately owned in enormous unproductive estates and governments are either unwilling or unable to challenge landowners by expropriating land for development or cultivation.

 

Another problem is that suburban development takes up too much land, you've got 1 or 2 story buildings maximum on the land, rather than apartment blocks which take up the space that no-one is using - above.

I'm pretty sure it is more left wing, environment is left wing, abortion is left wing and overpopulation is left wing. 

 

Should the world take a more pragmatic approach to the makeup of the worlds population. Should the current populations be maintained or should some percentages be reduced.

[Peter Quill]

Overpopulation is a right-wing myth.

I guess everything else is right-wing if you're a lunatic Marxist-Leninist 'socialist'.

[Andrezj Kolarov]

We're going to run out of food. We're already running out of food.

Says who? There's vast tracts of land on the earth which are unproductive, and no I'm not talking about national parks or reserves, I'm talking about private land which is not being cultivated. Landowners who own land which is unproductive should have their land confiscated and handed over to farmers.

 

Take India for example, enormous overcrowding problems in cities, yet still has vast tracts of land which are completely unproductive and in some cases uninhabited. The government cannot expand the city limits to create more housing without coming into conflict with the private landowners.

 

The problem of urban overpopulation is "real" in terms of the effects, but is "artificial" in terms of the causes. If society's resources, including land, were distributed equally, the problem would not exist.

Of course right-wingers place the blame for the inequality of society onto the people themselves, rather than the way society is organized.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Andrezj Kolarov

[Doktor Avalanche]

The FDA here in the US has enforced the limit of agricultural complexes here in the United States under the Obama administration. Many of these enforced regulations even target people growing a vegetable garden in your own backyard. This after all is coming from an administration that arrested people for collecting rain water.

[Clarke]

Says who? There's vast tracts of land on the earth which are unproductive, and no I'm not talking about national parks or reserves, I'm talking about private land which is not being cultivated. Landowners who own land which is unproductive should have their land confiscated and handed over to farmers.

 

Take India for example, enormous overcrowding problems in cities, yet still has vast tracts of land which are completely unproductive and in some cases uninhabited. The government cannot expand the city limits to create more housing without coming into conflict with the private landowners.

 

The problem of urban overpopulation is "real" in terms of the effects, but is "artificial" in terms of the causes. If society's resources, including land, were distributed equally, the problem would not exist.

 

As Engels pointed out, "it is absurd to talk of over-population so long as “there is ‘enough waste land in the valley of the Mississippi for the whole population of Europe to be transplanted there†[A. Alison, loc. cit., p. 548. - Ed.]".

Mississippi is the poorest US state, you and your buddies are so delusional and disconnected from reality. We all seen how well communism distributes food. 

 

Nerve gas half the planet.

 

Should most of the southern hemisphere be nerve gassed?

 

-image removed-

[durmij]

Hereno caught so much with this bait. It keeps going.

[Andrezj Kolarov]

Says farmers. 

Sure. Go ahead and start up some large farms in Northern Africa.

Oh! Or you could make some in the Middle East!?

No. The reason is because you can't make a productive farm unless you have the proper conditions.

Take Montana, for example.

Great tracts of land.... decent amount of rain... the only problem is that the ground dries to hell in the summers and it's freaking rocky. You simply can't have large farms there. It can only be used for ranches.

 

You're wrong. All the land that can be used for farming in India is being used. Look anywhere and I guarantee you that there's evidence of Human life (aside from the uninhabitable areas) 

Firstly you're ignoring large indoor factory-farming and other industrial methods. Secondly pretty much any type of land can be used for urban development.

[Clarke]

Firstly you're ignoring large indoor factory-farming and other industrial methods. Secondly pretty much any type of land can be used for urban development.

I assume you think we could have 100 billion people or more. 

[SoS]

The planet could support a lot more than 10 billion. But, our current economic systems can't.

 

If we were to kill half the population we would experience short lived increase in living standards followed by a return to the way things have always been. ^this has happened in the past.

 

Industry needs the poor (ie minorities) to breed for cheep labor.

[Clarke]

The planet could support a lot more than 10 billion. But, our current economic systems can't.

 

If we were to kill half the population we would experience short lived increase in living standards followed by a return to the way things have always been. ^this has happened in the past.

 

Industry needs the poor (ie minorities) to breed for cheep labor.

Replace them with robots. 

[Andrezj Kolarov]

In a communist utopia anything is possible comrade

Well in a socialist society resources are distributed according to need, while in a capitalist society they're distributed according to demand. So in a socialist state the State only needs to take resources to fulfill basic necessities and then whatever consumer goods it deems appropriate afterward. In a capitalist system the only regulating force of production is demand, so if the demand of humans for a particular good is extremely strong, then production (supply) will speed up at the same speed to meet this demand. In this way resources are depleted more quickly.

 

The basic question is, do you want society's production to be determined by the anarchic uncontrollable forces of market demand - even if this results in the planet's natural resources being depleted, or do you want society's production to be determined by a rate which ensures resources are exploited in a sustainable fashion, ie the State determines how quickly the country grows according to a plan.

 

So yes, the world population probably could support tens of billions if economic production was regulated by fulfilling needs firsts and foremost.

 

Also you're forgetting the fact that "the world" isn't one big country, it's over a hundred countries which are independent, you can't force them to lower their population, and even if you tried the only reason people reproduce in such numbers in the Africa and elsewhere is so they can have a boy to go and work for money for the family.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Andrezj Kolarov

[Moreau]

We could mine Asteroids, Mars, and the Moon. Some of that is already being attempted by various companies. This will give humanity access to an unprecedented wealth of resources that would allow us to be able to terraform the parts of Earth that were previously uninhabitable and unfit for farming/settlement. Whilst beginning and maintaining a long term effort to terraform Mars.

 

This is not withstanding new technologies in Agriculture & Animal husbandry. There is simply a huge amount of potential if we all focused on doing what's right instead of the ethnic cleansing being promoted by the OP.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Moreau III

[SoS]

Replace them with robots.

That would require or cause the same type of economic revolution that would eliminate scarcity (for all practical purposes).

 

Imagine what would happen if capitalists removed all human labor. 90% of humans would be obsolete and without a wage. The elite would need to create a new system to distribute goods to keep the masses passive.

 

Post scarcity is a problem that requires a change in economic theory first. Economic development will naturally lead to lower birth rates, as we've seen in all developed nations. If you don't want minorities in your nation out breeding your race, bring them out of poverty.

[Rozalia]

Replace them with robots. 

 

Quite right. We need not exploit some poor sods half way across the world, or worst import them here to then exploit.

[Clarke]

We could mine asteroids, mars, and the moon. Some of that is already being attempted by various companies. This will give humanity access to unprecedented wealth of resources and allow us to teraform parts of Earth that was previously inhabitable and unfit for farming. Whilst beginning and maintaining a long term effort to teraform Mars.

 

This is not withstanding new technology in Agriculture/Breeding livestock. There is simply a huge amount of potential if we all focused on doing what's right instead of the ethnic cleansing being promoted by the OP.

That's a long time off. 

Ethnic cleansing? That's ridiculous, I haven't suggested anything of sort however someone did suggest using nerve gas on half the planet which usually means nerve gas on the less productive overpopulated areas of the planet. I entertained his outrageous suggestion which I found highly offensive. 

[Clarke]

That would require or cause the same type of economic revolution that would eliminate scarcity (for all practical purposes).

 

Imagine what would happen if capitalists removed all human labor. 90% of humans would be obsolete and without a wage. The elite would need to create a new system to distribute goods to keep the masses passive.

 

Post scarcity is a problem that requires a change in economic theory first. Economic development will naturally lead to lower birth rates, as we've seen in all developed nations. If you don't want minorities in your nation out breeding your race, bring them out of poverty.

We're already passive. 

Better to eliminate poverty using robots and you won't need more people.

What do you think of baby factories?

[Andrezj Kolarov]

We could mine Asteroids, Mars, and the Moon. Some of that is already being attempted by various companies. This will give humanity access to an unprecedented wealth of resources that would allow us to be able to terraform the parts of Earth that were previously uninhabitable and unfit for farming/settlement. Whilst beginning and maintaining a long term effort to terraform Mars.

 

This is not withstanding new technologies in Agriculture & Animal husbandry. There is simply a huge amount of potential if we all focused on doing what's right instead of the ethnic cleansing being promoted by the OP.

You could have all the advanced technology in the world, it won't mean anything if the economic system is based around private ownership of industry. Keynes and other economists once thought that in a hundred years time (which is now) advanced industrial technology/automation will have made it possible that most people wouldn't have to work much at all. This hasn't happened, in fact it's almost the opposite, despite the enormous advance of technology people are working longer hours. I mean what is the point of economic development if not to rid ourselves of the need to work and focus on all the good things of life?

 

The basic answer is that you need a economic system which distributes resources equally. Under capitalism the only incentive of the employer is to increase productivity and decrease costs.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Andrezj Kolarov

[SoS]

We're passive because we're getting paid. Why would we get paid if labor isn't needed?

 

We already have baby factories (minorities). Why would industry pay to raise a baby to a productive age?

 

Multiplication of effort is the direct cause of lower wages (lower demand for labor).

[Andrezj Kolarov]

We're already passive. 

Better to eliminate poverty using robots and you won't need more people.

What do you think of baby factories?

Because human beings are cheaper than robots, lrn2capitalism.

[Clarke]

You're saying socialist but all I am hearing is communist ideas.
 

We're passive because we're getting paid. Why would we get paid if labor isn't needed?

We already have baby factories (minorities). Why would industry pay to raise a baby to a productive age?

Multiplication of effort is the direct cause of lower wages (lower demand for labor).

I didn't say labor wasn't needed but a lot of it is disappearing for humans. 
I didn't mean baby factories for working, robots can do the work.

 

Because human beings are cheaper than robots, lrn2capitalism.

I'm talking about robots in developed countries.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Clarke

[SoS]

Baby factories for food? Humans are an inefficient livestock. Only free range humans are an economically viable food source.

 

Ironically, with the j-curve being what it is, we are headed for a steep population decline through starvation and cannibaliasm. God knows the world won't change before then. The more we breed the faster it will happen.

[Andrezj Kolarov]

You're saying socialist but all I am hearing is communist ideas.

That's because they are the same thing. Not my fault that "socialism" has become another word for social-democracy or capitalism-with-social-reforms in the US.

 

I'm talking about robots in developed countries.

It doesn't matter what country you're in, they'll just use immigrants or whatever. There might be a future when robotic automation is cheaper than using human bodies but it isn't now and it won't be for a long time, especially when you consider that there's always a worker who is willing to be paid a lower wage to replace the other guy.

[Andrezj Kolarov]

That's like saying under communism the only incentive of the revolutionaries is to kill anyone who has more than they do.

I'm talking about economic incentives, in capitalism companies operate based on the profit motive, they produce goods and sell them to the public. Production is determined by the market and how much demand there is for the good being sold by the company. In socialism companies operate based on the orders they receive from the State, so if the economy requires 20,000 pairs of new shoes by a specified date, the company receives money and resources from the State to meet that production number.

 

The main thing is that in a capitalist system the only way the public can interact with a market is with money, the more money you have the greater you can influence the market. But seeing as wealth (and thus money) is not distributed equally (because the companies are owned privately) in a capitalist system, that means that the economy is geared to satisfy the wants of the most rich, not the needs of the common people.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Andrezj Kolarov