Jumping off the cliff at 65 is not an option

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

Only a Christian could fail to see the dire consequences of overpopulation. Smart people must find answers. The question is how to best control the population, regulation or incentives. India is trying now rewarding sterilization with gifts, from TVs to cars. Imagine having something else to do --such as watching TV-- other than making babies. I think it's a good idea. This in turn could help prevent massive emigration, deforestation, suffering and war. Babies are cute but in moderation. And let's not forget about EDUCATION.
Prevention is the key, not having babies born into poverty. Then the Christians would have another charity to run. Hindus should be smarter than that.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/weird-wide-web/indias-sex-drive-solution-population-explosion
----------------------------------------------------------
"The jungle has never been this much fun!"
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nffbCR_uCZ6znjf3gLiFRXSAoLzhWtoZ6U4S7Y37aKc/edit?usp=sharing

So what is the _optimal_ human population of the planet?

I don't think a population beyond 8 billion is sustainable. Experts say even our current population in combination with our consumption habits is unsustainable.

The question I have not being able to answer is how to avoid getting into a cycle of aging populations throughout the world. Jumping off the cliff at 65 is not an option.

How about if we give a nice car to your family... Will they push you off the cliff?


-----------------------------------------------------

"The jungle has never been this much fun!"

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nffbCR_uCZ6znjf3gLiFRXSAoLzhWtoZ6U4S7Y37aKc/edit?usp=sharing

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher

Only a Christian could fail to see the dire consequences of overpopulation. Smart people must find answers. The question is how to best control the population, regulation or incentives. India is trying now rewarding sterilization with gifts, from TVs to cars. Imagine having something else to do --such as watching TV-- other than making babies. I think it's a good idea. This in turn could help prevent massive emigration, deforestation, suffering and war. Babies are cute but in moderation. And let's not forget about EDUCATION.
Prevention is the key, not having babies born into poverty. Then the Christians would have another charity to run. Hindus should be smarter than that.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/weird-wide-web/indias-sex-drive-solution-population-explosion
----------------------------------------------------------
"The jungle has never been this much fun!"
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nffbCR_uCZ6znjf3gLiFRXSAoLzhWtoZ6U4S7Y37aKc/edit?usp=sharing

So what is the _optimal_ human population of the planet?

I don't think a population beyond 8 billion is sustainable. Experts say even our current population in combination with our consumption habits is unsustainable.
The question I have not being able to answer is how to avoid getting into a cycle of aging populations throughout the world. Jumping off the cliff at 65 is not an option.
How about if we give a nice car to your family... Will they push you off the cliff?

The answer is to pour research money into gerontology and degenerative diseases. Old people aren't dependent due to being old, but due to being (in many cases) sick.
Still, the majority of us fall off our twigs fairly abruptly, without an extended period of support.
The Japanese are a nation in which the demographic problem struck early. They're looking at technical aids for the disabled.
I refuse (especially at my age) to regard increasing longevity as a "problem".

Personally it may not be a problem, globally it is a problem.

If we promote sterilization AND extend longevity, we may have some nasty side effects such as the dwindling younger generations working to sustain the elders.

Unless we cut them off from ALL benefits. Isn't it better to jump off the cliff?

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

As crappy and corrupt as democracy is --my community is certainly both-- it may be that: A) It turns out viable and desirable, for example Germany. B) A wildcard such as Modi rises to power and changes all that crappiness and corruption.
While Singapore has achieved success, we can not guarantee that every autocracy will have such a happy ending. When elites have no will to come out of the jungle, the monkeys will remain living like animals. Do you think I exaggerate that a dog has a higher value than a person in their view?

Our castes are not determined as in India though. People grow in value as they grow older...

And such is the case that the older person has a higher value than the younger person, even kids. Around here they pamper the old because they feed the voting machine.

This apparent conflict of extending the life of the old at the expense of their grandchildren is something that I shall address. I have another idea --besides jumping off the cliff.

(to be continued)

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 09:27:35 +0100, Malcolm McMahon

Only a Christian could fail to see the dire consequences of overpopulation. Smart people must find answers. The question is how to best control the population, regulation or incentives. India is trying now rewarding sterilization with gifts, from TVs to cars. Imagine having something else to do --such as watching TV-- other than making babies. I think it's a good idea. This in turn could help prevent massive emigration, deforestation, suffering and war. Babies are cute but in moderation. And let's not forget about EDUCATION.

Of course, India has always had a population control system. The Dowry
seems, to me, to have evolved as a population regulation mechanism.
What we forget, in the West, is that in terms of population dynamics
only females matter. There will always be enough sperm to go around. The
crucial factor is how many daughters each woman has.
The dowry system means that the poorer you are the fewer daughters you
can afford to keep. So it is reasonable to suppose it automatically
regulates population to produce a certain level of poverty.
In Europe the method of dealing with excess young women was the nunnery.
But I dare say infanticide was pretty common here.

According to an article in the Scientific American back in the 70s,
before 1900, infanticide was the most common form of active population
control in the U.S. and Europe. (Inactive forms relied on segregation
of the sexes--usually nunneries for the girls and ships for the
guys--for long periods of time. British sperm shed in Naples, of
course, was not England's problem.) Mothers "overlaying" their
infants or losing their grip on them on the banks of canals was a
pretty frequent plot device in the more sensational 19th century
fiction. I suppose you could count maternal suicides as prenatal
infanticides as well.

We are sort of defeating Nature, but she will catch up. I don't know if it will be Ebola or WWIII, but we will pay. The technological revolution has made it possible to expand and multiply and nobody's addressing the two concomitant issues of controlling birthrates and rising life expectancy rates.