NationStates Jolt Archive

Population Engineering

Description: Epidemia scientists have discovered that many issues stem from the propensity for poor people to procreate at a greater rate than people with means. The poor, jobless, and educationally challenged of all nations tend to have a higher percentage of under-educated, poor and jobless offspring.

As such Epidemia has come up with a method which will increase the education, and financial status of a nations citizenry.

Incentive based birth control, where a large sum of money is payed to people who voluntarily submit to sterilization. Money saved from programs such as welfare, public education all can be used for the inscentive payments.

Seeing as how the child of a jobless person on welfare has a loaded cost of approximately 75,000$ over the pre-emancipation years. Half of that money or 37,500 dollars should be offered to people who voluntarilly submit to permenent sterilization.

This incentive based system will reduce the class size of inner city schools, as well as reduce the quantity of the financial underclass. This money would be available to all people but would be more often taken by those who need the money. So not only would education improve but the money would be spent in the area's most in need of cash.

Finally the untimate result of this proposal would be the reduction of poverty, improvement in education, a modest reduction in the rate of world wide population growth (thereby reducing pollution/resource strain) and increase in precentage of productive members of society.

The sterilization can be reversed for 75,000 dollars. So if people's lot in life change they can with out punitive measures have the proceedure un-done.

^bump^

Thank you for your support. So far I have 6 votes for the proposal.

Your assistance would be appreciated.

Please keep this propasal alive delegates and esteemed members of the UN.

only 113 to go. People this is good for the planet, good for your kids, and good for population.

7 votes in 12 hours I need more :)

5.8 million square miles (a land mass equivelent to north america) are already farmland to feed 6 billion people. When the population reaches 12 billion (approximately 50 years) land use for farming should approximately double to 11.4 million this would be approximatly the land mass of North and south america.

Now I am sure if you look at the globe and take a guess at how much of it is actually capable of growing food you can see a problem. Yes pesticides will improve and soil enrichment improve yield will improve. But how many square miles of earths surface are capable of supporting farm land.

Something has to break. don't you think a little aggressive birth control should be instituted at some point.

I have 111 votes to go before we all can vote on this.

I may be doom and gloomy, but if I am wrong we will have a slightly smaller population, but if I am right we could see people starving, wars, and general sucky lifestyle in 50 to 100 years.

I fully support this proposal. Incentive-based population control as you propose would help to reduce poverty while avoiding the discontent that coercion-based population control would bring. To those of you who believe that the cash award is too large, I say that you should be free to choose to award a lower amount to your citizens (keeping in mind that a greatly lower amount will likely result in fewer volunteers).

I would think the incentive would be based upon an approximation of the net cost to the community to teach, aid, (support) 2.3 children. That approximation should be the base number for the payment. some percentage of the Net Child Rearing Costs. The ammortized NCRC should then be used to produce the NCRCBC (Net Child Rearing Costs Base Credit ) by using NSI (Net Savings Index). The NSI is a mutually agreed upon factor by which you reduce the NCRCBC.

Using California as an example
55 billion
5 million students
10,000 bucks per student (dang you guys are getting ripped)
12 years primary education
120,000 (NCRC)
60,000 (NCRCBC)
.5 (NSI)
30,000 (NCRCP -Net Child Rearing Cost Payout)

This healthy sum would go a long way to helping a poor family acquire their first house. While still lowering taxes.


Hey people still 111 votes to go. come on this is one of the most significant proposals ever. If addopted by enough member nations we stand to improve the standard of living for the poor, reduce taxes, improve resource demands, improve eduation. There is no down side.

I need your support to get this to the floor.

Ok well this is a bit of a problem.

I call on you fellars who voted for my proposal to alert your member nations as to its existence.

I have been having votes dribble in but I am still way shy of the number needed to bring this to the floor.

I need a moment of time from all the delegates to read and evaluate the validity of this proposal.

The world will suffer if more delegates do not review and vote for this proposal.

It may not be written with the most eloquent verbage but it is a fine piece of legislation, it steps on no ones rights and it makes the kyoto accords seem like a foolish childs game. This legislation does not put more burden on any country just suggests a way to stem pollution and overpopulation with out any negative implication.

voting ends soon I need your support.

After careful consideration, I regret to report that we in Gurthark must oppose this proposal.

Beyond registering it, we will not discuss the vague eugenic taint that hangs over the proposal, precisely because the taint *is* vague, and we can believe that the proposal was not intended as eugenics.

However, we in Gurthark have a strict policy, which we advocate for other nations, of not providing financial incentives for people to give up their privacy, dignity, or right to control their own bodies.

Whether the issue is organ-selling, paid sterilization, paid submission to unsafe medical experiments, selling oneself into slavery, or (in the extreme case) paid suicide, these sorts of government incentives encourage the poor to trade their dignity for a chance for their families. They create an environment where the poor have *less* dignity, increasing the effects of social and income inequality.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

If anything we need more people.

If anything we need more people.


Oh please do tell how this might be so??? :roll:

If we are going to feed the coming 12 billion people we will almost definitely have to wipe out the rain forests.

Fish supplies are running shorter and shorter only feeding 6 billion people.

and 12 billion people whizzz 3 times a day and dump 12 billion times a day. Think of how much basic waste that is.

We need mor people:roll:

If anything we need more people.


Oh please do tell how this might be so??? :roll:

If we are going to feed the coming 12 billion people we will almost definitely have to wipe out the rain forests.

Fish supplies are running shorter and shorter only feeding 6 billion people.

and 12 billion people whizzz 3 times a day and dump 12 billion times a day. Think of how much basic waste that is.

We need mor people:roll:

Eat them.

Should I have said "I need more people" instead?

Population engineering by cannibalism.

Hmmmmm let me thinks about that one.

There is also the option of turning my desert land into farmland.

Then more people means a larger labor force. They can plow the fields. We can also research higher yielding crops.

There is also the option of turning my desert land into farmland.

Then more people means a larger labor force. They can plow the fields. We can also research higher yielding crops.

Of course you can always turn you desert into wonderful farm land but the byproduct of that is more aggricultural run off fouling waterways and the tremendous use of resources like water to yield productive crops.

Even though my bill failed to acquire enough interest the fact remains that we should be considering a course of action to if for no other reason than to limit risk.

China and India Given one vehicle per house and 1 gallon a day of fuel works out to about 20 million barrels of fuel a day (which BTW is 10 times the output currently produced today.)

Currently China and India combined have approximately a .7 KWh per day compared with todays western nations at approximately 14 to 20 Kwh

so were you to dump an air conditioner in India and china you would be talking about tremendous increase in power production...

Population control by what ever means is going to be a problem in the near future.

The larger the population, the larger the workforce. We can import water if that is your concern...

Besides a large population can mean a larger military.

having a large workforce is not all that great a thing in and of itself.

You need large projects and large clients otherwise the large workforce is useless and a detriment.

China and India have large workforces. See, how they prosper :roll:.

Zimbabwe has a large population VS Resource ratio and it has a terrible population vs saleable goods ratio. They can't buy water, seed, or anything. Large population serves little good.

Large population of workers capable of doing given work lowers value of individuals. In other words limits your bargaining power.

I will not vote, right now anyway. I think we all really need to think about this. If you did enact this, think of how much money you would have to dish out in the first 5 years (espically to the elder who are already incapable, or people who have already had kids- you will want to rewrite this one very well). Take an average of half a billion people living in nation x. Say, out of this half a billion, 300 million (poor, middle class, rich, anyone) give in to this 37,500 dollar payment. That is 112,500,000,000 dollars you will need to pay out, over the course of five years! But you use the 37500 you already saved, making your (in theory) total loss of only a little over 56 trillion. Not to mention how you would (in theory) hurt the economy by eliminating jobs by controling the population. But then, you would be cutting in the long term healthcare funding, because there would be excess. I think it would be a long term gamble. And just think, I am only scratching the surface of what would/could happen. You should all think this over before you vote, because it is a long term gamble.

China and India have large workforces. See, how they prosper :roll:.


A large part of their economy is basket weaving, too.

I might possibly have supported this, had I been in the UN at the time, but I would have preferred a much smaller reward.

This preference stems from the fact that the suggested quantity of money is an obscene amount in any third world country. It may be balanced by the high costs of upbringing of an individual in the first world, but in no way relates to the relatively low expenditure on an additional third world citizen. I suggest that if you divide the figure by one hundred, you could find many takers among the world's poorest - $375 equates to the average annual GDP per capita in the world's very poorest nations. You would not find as many takers as with the larger amount, certainly, but in some ways that might be a good thing - we need new youngsters to replace and provide for an aging working population, and cannot cut off the supply completely (for this reason, I anticipate China's one child policy to cause absolute havoc in a decade or two).

Also, as a prior poster said, people applying would have to be of an age that would suggest they could be fertile. I would suggest excluding any man over 60, woman over 50, or person below 18 years of age from this scheme (yes, under-18s are fertile, but they're also not known for responsible decision making, and might very much regret the decision later).

So in short, it's a good idea but needs better economics. I'm tempted to propose a revised version myself, when I can - if, that is, it's permissible under the rules and you wouldn't be too offended by my stealing your idea (although you really shouldn't be - imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, after all).

I might possibly have supported this, had I been in the UN at the time, but I would have preferred a much smaller reward.

This preference stems from the fact that the suggested quantity of money is an obscene amount in any third world country. It may be balanced by the high costs of upbringing of an individual in the first world, but in no way relates to the relatively low expenditure on an additional third world citizen. I suggest that if you divide the figure by one hundred, you could find many takers among the world's poorest - $375 equates to the average annual GDP per capita in the world's very poorest nations. You would not find as many takers as with the larger amount, certainly, but in some ways that might be a good thing - we need new youngsters to replace and provide for an aging working population, and cannot cut off the supply completely (for this reason, I anticipate China's one child policy to cause absolute havoc in a decade or two).

Also, as a prior poster said, people applying would have to be of an age that would suggest they could be fertile. I would suggest excluding any man over 60, woman over 50, or person below 18 years of age from this scheme (yes, under-18s are fertile, but they're also not known for responsible decision making, and might very much regret the decision later).

So in short, it's a good idea but needs better economics. I'm tempted to propose a revised version myself, when I can - if, that is, it's permissible under the rules and you wouldn't be too offended by my stealing your idea (although you really shouldn't be - imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, after all).

I might possibly have supported this, had I been in the UN at the time, but I would have preferred a much smaller reward.

This preference stems from the fact that the suggested quantity of money is an obscene amount in any third world country. It may be balanced by the high costs of upbringing of an individual in the first world, but in no way relates to the relatively low expenditure on an additional third world citizen. I suggest that if you divide the figure by one hundred, you could find many takers among the world's poorest - $375 equates to the average annual GDP per capita in the world's very poorest nations. You would not find as many takers as with the larger amount, certainly, but in some ways that might be a good thing - we need new youngsters to replace and provide for an aging working population, and cannot cut off the supply completely (for this reason, I anticipate China's one child policy to cause absolute havoc in a decade or two).

Also, as a prior poster said, people applying would have to be of an age that would suggest they could be fertile. I would suggest excluding any man over 60, woman over 50, or person below 18 years of age from this scheme (yes, under-18s are fertile, but they're also not known for responsible decision making, and might very much regret the decision later).

So in short, it's a good idea but needs better economics. I'm tempted to propose a revised version myself, when I can - if, that is, it's permissible under the rules and you wouldn't be too offended by my stealing your idea (although you really shouldn't be - imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, after all).


The formula use to derrive the payout would be applied in each economy. so if your government spends an average of 10,000 for education (NCRC) over 12 years then that would be you starting point.

You would need to plug your nations formulas. even if your country is exceedingly poor investments in education will be relative. So a payout of 300 bucks in a country where the average annual income is 150 would still be desireable.


I would think the incentive would be based upon an approximation of the net cost to the community to teach, aid, (support) 2.3 children. That approximation should be the base number for the payment. some percentage of the Net Child Rearing Costs. The ammortized NCRC should then be used to produce the NCRCBC (Net Child Rearing Costs Base Credit ) by using NSI (Net Savings Index). The NSI is a mutually agreed upon factor by which you reduce the NCRCBC.

Using California as an example
55 billion
5 million students
10,000 bucks per student (dang you guys are getting ripped)
12 years primary education
120,000 (NCRC)
60,000 (NCRCBC)
.5 (NSI)
30,000 (NCRCP -Net Child Rearing Cost Payout)

This healthy sum would go a long way to helping a poor family acquire their first house. While still lowering taxes.


As for the initial expense I would have limits on it. You would not pay out to old geezers who chose not to have children. The payout would not be for people who had already had more than 2 children. This legislation would be geared toward future reduction not historical reduction. people who choose to have the routine sterilization for the (NCRCP -Net Child Rearing Cost Payout) could have the process reversed, but, there would be an equivelent tax on the proceedure which would raise cost of the reversal to approximately (NCRCP)

The expense would be tremendous but within a 5 years you will see huge reductions in education expenses. within 16 years reduction in gang violence. Within 12 years huge increase in student quality and reductions in the need for specialized education programs. I suspect within 20 years productivity increases due to improved workforce. Ultimately increases in GDP would help pay for elder care.

Yes, and in 20 years huge reductions in people entering the working population. We need controlled decelleration in population growth, not a sudden crash.

So we should not make the payment too appetising - an absolute maximum of an average years' wages for the country in question, perhaps. (For example, my own nation, Lohentopia, with an average income of ~4200 lohenis, as derived from our "reasonable" economy, should definitely not hand out more than that as an impetus. I also would not suggest revising the figure for nations with different imbalances in wealth - if anything, it could provide one useful means of redressing the balance.

-----------

There is, of course, an alternative to this policy - to institute a definite limit on the number of children each mother (it kind of has to be the mother, to be certain) is allowed, like in the case of China's one child policy. We in Lohentopia are not in favour of this, because unlike the pay off system it takes choice out of the hands of the individual; however, a definitely regulated system does behave somewhat more predictably, which some governments might prefer.

Temporary Solution to an ever growing problem. Therefor the only real solution would be some way to grow things other than on earth(technically speaking). I say that a real solution would be climate control, to make growing periods longer. This would affect the world to much though so you really have to find a better solution than both of them while still honoring the rights of individuals.

What are the populations of your nations? Couldn't you use a bigger army or more slave labor?

I could.

About the NS world, the proposal that was rejected was not very respecting of national sovereignty.
About the real world? Population reduction? Reduction? Nay, I say, population increase! Wait and listen to me before you dismiss my argument completely.
First of all, let's look at the intelligence gamble. Let's say that nation x has a popualtion of 150 million, and begin to have problems feeding their growing number of people. So, they aquire more farmland. One is going to run out of farmland eventually, so nation x sees a problem. Then suddenly, nation x offers financial aid to those people who get degrees in Agricultural Science, in exchange for 2-3 years of working for the government. Now, you have many scientists working on the food problem. As the population grows, you get more and more people wanting to become scientists to solve the problem of food production.

----So, as your population grows, so too does your ability to solve food production problems.------

Now, the space travel approach. If your population grows, why not invest in a large space program. Sure, it might take 100 years or even more, but by then you could have many fledgling colonies on space stations, satellites (moons), and other worlds.

-----If the population is too big for Earth to support, then leave.------

So, as you may have guessed, I and my nation see more people as more oppurtunities for scientific breakthroughs, as well as the betterment of society.

-----If you have 5 people in a room, they might have a few bright ideas. But if you have 5,000 people in a room, then your chances go way up.----

Most scientific discoverys are made by relatively small dedicated groups or by accident.

I think the improved education system caused by the smaller class sizes and the reduction of problem students will leave you with a higher quality scientist. Instead of devoting all their time to developing food resources could be spending their time improving the environment.

By percentage a starving population or overcrowded impoverished population produces very few scientists. More thugs and leaches.

10,000 highly educated and motivated people can out think 1,000,000 average people.

Anacreon has raised a good point. Today's real world population, the largest ever, has also led to the fastest pace of events in history, of many kinds. It's linked to the rise and scale of the internet, the increases in medical technology, and a great deal of other matters besides.

But it's unstable. Fertile farmland is diminishing, as soil wears out. Fish stocks have fallen drastically and continue to fall. Fresh water is dwindling. Oil demand looks set to outstrip oil production, and coal is likely to run out full stop. Having a big population is great, at least for the few who sit on top of it. But like a locust swarm, it soon strips the earth bare.

As for space expansion, it's been predicted that it would take at least 100 years of determined effort to terraform Mars, which nobody looks like starting on soon. Lunar or space stations at current tech levels look set to consume more resources than they can produce, and to be unhealthy for humans besides. We're going to run into critical population problems and associated crises before any of this can be brought to bear.