NationStates Jolt Archive

Some of you may have seen my misplaced post about this a few minutes ago.

The human race has few, if any, natural population controls. Except disease. I said "If any" before, because disease is now essentially meaningless to our growth. To be more specific: smallpox. Almost every species on the planet has a specific pox that kills it. Human smallpox has difficulty in infecting even our closest primate relatives. Poxes are HIGHLY specific, and EXTREMELY deadly.

But to get to my main point: the eradication of smallpox is a bad thing. Smallpox controls our population based on population density. In densely populated areas, smallpox may kill nearly 1/3 of all persons. In sparsely populated areas, it kills very few. It is the PERFECT population controller.

Then along comes medical science. Now disease is trivial, save for AIDS, which is really a very weak disease, being borne solely in bodily fluids. And, well, I'll leave you to look at this chart. Think about when vaccination came into being:
http://www.gumption.org/1993/memo/landmarks/world_population.gif

People dying is the whole problem of overpopulation. You want to kill people in order to prevent them from dying? That's totally absurd.

Hey, I've got a fantastic new idea! Instead of releasing smallpox into the world again, let's just spend some cash on sex education, women's clinics in third world countries, and contraception! See, that way we can reduce the birth rate where it matters, in third world nations where people breed quickly. Then we don't have to deal with more than a third of the world's population dying out in the course of a few months and the problems that brings along with it.

Capitalism is very effective at population control. The most productive European countries have the most slowly growing populations - several, including Germany (the world's biggest exporter) have a falling population. And capitalism is much nicer than a disease (in most people's opinions).

Sorry, when I see the word, 'smallpox', I think of 'the original bioterrorism'. I still don't accept blankets from strangers.

Hey, I've got a fantastic new idea! Instead of releasing smallpox into the world again, let's just spend some cash on sex education, women's clinics in third world countries, and contraception! See, that way we can reduce the birth rate where it matters, in third world nations where people breed quickly. Then we don't have to deal with more than a third of the world's population dying out in the course of a few months and the problems that brings along with it.
For a right-wing uber-USian-patriot you sure sound like a pinko commie.

Or... just get the UN out of there and let them kill each other. :D

Capitalism is very effective at population control. The most productive European countries have the most slowly growing populations - several, including Germany (the world's biggest exporter) have a falling population. And capitalism is much nicer than a disease (in most people's opinions).
I'd think it had more to do with education than an economic system, personally.

For a right-wing uber-USian-patriot you sure sound like a pinko commie.
I told you before Sinuhue, I'm a liberal. I'm just a weird liberal.

I told you before Sinuhue, I'm a liberal. I'm just a weird liberal.
I know. I just get a giggle fit every time someone makes the assumption that you are a raving lunatic right-wing facist Usian freak. Maybe I should start a collection of your liberal posts for such occasions?

Most of the world population now has some immunity to smallpox. It no longer kills, it leaves people with terrible scars. You might read the book "1491" about the European advance in the Americas. At that time, smallpox probably killed 90% of the native population. It didn't effect the Europeans because they had already had the disease and had immunity. Nearly every European at the time was covered with scars. They were amazed that Indians had no scars. Those natives that survived, did so by a natural ability to adapt to the disease. The same is true of the rest of the world population.

Far better would be to limit population by birth control and economics. People with advanced economics, especially when women gain economic power, tend to self regulate their population. How much economic power women have almost parallels population decline.

I know. I just get a giggle fit every time someone makes the assumption that you are a raving lunatic right-wing facist Usian freak. Maybe I should start a collection of your liberal posts for such occasions?
Yeah, but then someone will take my "Kill the enemies of our culture!" posts and use them to prove I'm some kind of war-mongering neocon slightly to the right of Ghengis Kahn.

Most of the world population now has some immunity to smallpox. It no longer kills, it leaves people with terrible scars. You might read the book "1491" about the European advance in the Americas. At that time, smallpox probably killed 90% of the native population. It didn't effect the Europeans because they had already had the disease and had immunity. Nearly every European at the time was covered with scars. They were amazed that Indians had no scars. Those natives that survived, did so by a natural ability to adapt to the disease. The same is true of the rest of the world population.

Far better would be to limit population by birth control and economics. People with advanced economics, especially when women gain economic power, tend to self regulate their population. How much economic power women have almost parallels population decline.
You are so wrong. Nobody on earth, except for people working with smallpox in level 4 biohazard containment labs has any resistence to smallpox anymore. The immunizations only protected for about ten years or so. Since eradication in the seventies nobody but scientists working with smallpox got immunized. If released today it would wipe out literally billions of people. Nobody born after the 1970s would have any exposure to the Pox, and most people born before the 1970s never contracted it because of the vaccine (which no longer offers protection after so long without a booster)

Some of you may have seen my misplaced post about this a few minutes ago.

The human race has few, if any, natural population controls. Except disease. I said "If any" before, because disease is now essentially meaningless to our growth. To be more specific: smallpox. Almost every species on the planet has a specific pox that kills it. Human smallpox has difficulty in infecting even our closest primate relatives. Poxes are HIGHLY specific, and EXTREMELY deadly.

But to get to my main point: the eradication of smallpox is a bad thing. Smallpox controls our population based on population density. In densely populated areas, smallpox may kill nearly 1/3 of all persons. In sparsely populated areas, it kills very few. It is the PERFECT population controller.

Then along comes medical science. Now disease is trivial, save for AIDS, which is really a very weak disease, being borne solely in bodily fluids. And, well, I'll leave you to look at this chart. Think about when vaccination came into being:
http://www.gumption.org/1993/memo/landmarks/world_population.gif

You can just wait for bird flu. Supposed to kill tens of millions if it becomes an epidemic.

What we need is free contraception and sex education worldwide. That and getting the undeveloped world out of third world status.

That's a much saner idea to control population growth than releasing smallpox.

What we need is free contraception and sex education worldwide. That and getting the undeveloped world out of third world status.

That's a much saner idea to control population growth than releasing smallpox.I agree.

Hey, I've got a fantastic new idea! Instead of releasing smallpox into the world again, let's just spend some cash on sex education, women's clinics in third world countries, and contraception! See, that way we can reduce the birth rate where it matters, in third world nations where people breed quickly. Then we don't have to deal with more than a third of the world's population dying out in the course of a few months and the problems that brings along with it.

Lol, sex is the cheapest (free) form of entertainment on the planet. In third world countries, they just wanna skroo, because everything else sucks. They eat bugs, they live in terrible conditions. But the hooha they get is the same hooha that the rich fatcat republicans get.

Lol, sex is the cheapest (free) form of entertainment on the planet. In third world countries, they just wanna skroo, because everything else sucks. They eat bugs, they live in terrible conditions. But the hooha they get is the same hooha that the rich fatcat republicans get.
That's why they need contraceptives.

Surpisingly, I am not worried about a small-pox outbreak, I'm not doubting that an outbreak wont happen, I just feel rather apathetic about it, if I die, well I die. No biggie. :)

the eradication of smallpox is a bad thing.you are a disgusting pos.

You are so wrong. Nobody on earth, except for people working with smallpox in level 4 biohazard containment labs has any resistence to smallpox anymore. The immunizations only protected for about ten years or so. Since eradication in the seventies nobody but scientists working with smallpox got immunized. If released today it would wipe out literally billions of people. Nobody born after the 1970s would have any exposure to the Pox, and most people born before the 1970s never contracted it because of the vaccine (which no longer offers protection after so long without a booster)
There is a difference between immunity and fatality. Unless the smallpox have been genetically engineered to be more fatal then the original, smallpox would kill some, but most of the world's population would end up terribly scared but not dead. The shots weren't only to prevent fatality but also provide immunity from the disease. Few of us would have immunity, but because our predecesors evolved to live with the disease nearly all of us have enough resistance to survive. Just as the Europeans that landed in the Americas were scared but not dead.

There is a difference between immunity and fatality. Unless the smallpox have been genetically engineered to be more fatal then the original, smallpox would kill some, but most of the world's population would end up terribly scared but not dead. The shots weren't only to prevent fatality but also provide immunity from the disease. Few of us would have immunity, but because our predecesors evolved to live with the disease nearly all of us have enough resistance to survive. Just as the Europeans that landed in the Americas were scared but not dead.
You're simply wrong. Smallpox came in many different strains. Some were not very lethal. They swept through Europe and Asia leaving most people scarred and few dead, but forever more immune to other strains of Smallpox. Other strains of Smallpox, like India 1 and the Dumbell strain were much more lethal. They would kill one third or more of the people they managed to infect. The strains most likely to be released (probably through a bioweapon program) would be the most lethal, not the most benign.

Smallpox strains vary in lethality from below 30% lethality to as much as 90%+ lethality.5
http://www.cissm.umd.edu/documents/Greninger%20Paper%2007-16-04.pdf

thank you all for the enragred outbursts I expected. Now, to address some concerns over my proposal:

Contraception: great plan, except that we have religious fundamentalists claiming its wrong. Having lived in Africa, let me tell you, they're a TAD resistant to contraception lol.

Capitalism: This was one I liked, seriously. Yes, many European nations' populations are stable/declining!! Congratulations, thousands of years of evolution has paid off!! Wait....so why is our population still exploding? Oh, right, the rest of the world. Hmm. Damn shame they still have hundreds of years to go to get there, and at current growth rates, that leaves us pretty fucked.

Morality: Well DUH. Of course this idea is morally corrupt. But so are the wars that are waged for overpopulation. And apparently so is contraception. Fundamentalism makes me sick.

Immunity: I honestly laughed at this one. NO ONE has immunity to smallpox anymore, save some researchers who still work with it. First off, there's BILLIONS of people who have been born after the mass vaccinations. Secondly, the immunity only works over a limited time period.

Overall, I'd just like to say, this is one area of life where our supposedly morality is really a kick in the face. We're so damned selfish, thinking that we deserve to live unfettered by diseases and wars and famine (sidenote: if the diseases don't get us, you can damn well bet famine will. At least the third world). Let's face it, we're living organisms, and just like rabbits introduced to a small island without predators, we're well on our way to a population crash. Suck it up, people, our population's gonna come to a grinding halt one way or another. And I'll bet my life on it.

thank you all for the enragred outbursts I expected. Now, to address some concerns over my proposal:

Contraception: great plan, except that we have religious fundamentalists claiming its wrong. Having lived in Africa, let me tell you, they're a TAD resistant to contraception lol.

Capitalism: This was one I liked, seriously. Yes, many European nations' populations are stable/declining!! Congratulations, thousands of years of evolution has paid off!! Wait....so why is our population still exploding? Oh, right, the rest of the world. Hmm. Damn shame they still have hundreds of years to go to get there, and at current growth rates, that leaves us pretty fucked.

Morality: Well DUH. Of course this idea is morally corrupt. But so are the wars that are waged for overpopulation. And apparently so is contraception. Fundamentalism makes me sick.

Immunity: I honestly laughed at this one. NO ONE has immunity to smallpox anymore, save some researchers who still work with it. First off, there's BILLIONS of people who have been born after the mass vaccinations. Secondly, the immunity only works over a limited time period.

Overall, I'd just like to say, this is one area of life where our supposedly morality is really a kick in the face. We're so damned selfish, thinking that we deserve to live unfettered by diseases and wars and famine (sidenote: if the diseases don't get us, you can damn well bet famine will. At least the third world). Let's face it, we're living organisms, and just like rabbits introduced to a small island without predators, we're well on our way to a population crash. Suck it up, people, our population's gonna come to a grinding halt one way or another. And I'll bet my life on it.

Ok, if we don't go extinct before 2007 I'm comming to collect.

Ok, if we don't go extinct before 2007 I'm comming to collect.

Actually 2035 is the predicted crash. If it hasn't happened by THEN, then I'll send you my address, a pistol, and a golden bullet with the inscription "You are a morally corrupt bastard"

Actually 2035 is the predicted crash. If it hasn't happened by THEN, then I'll send you my address, a pistol, and a golden bullet with the inscription "You are a morally corrupt bastard"
Ok, it's a deal.

Now disease is trivial, save for AIDS

What a bunch of malarky. Disease is the #1 cause of death in the world. Cancer, AIDS, Heart Disease, and countless others. I don't see how you can say that that's trivial.

What a bunch of malarky. Disease is the #1 cause of death in the world. Cancer, AIDS, Heart Disease, and countless others. I don't see how you can say that that's trivial.

Hmm, very well, I concede the point. I revise my statement to read "The effect of infectious disease on the population has declined markedly"

The world as a whole isn't overpopulated; nowhere near it, given the massive amounts of underutilized land and resources. The problem lies primarily with the inefficent allocation/distribution/transportation of resources, the correlation between poverty and population growth, and the concentration of most of the world's poor in to very small areas.

Ultimately, inefficency and poverty are the problem, not the number of people. Controlling the number of people wouldn't solve the problem; what would address it would be stronger economic growth, better sanitation/health services, better transportation infrastructure, and more efficent markets to distribute/allocate the transported resources according to market prices.

Population growth slows with increasing affluence; whenever we reduce poverty, we address the future problem of overpopulation. All of the contraception and sex education in the world aren't going to work unless we attack the causes of rapid population growth first. And if we do that, they won't really be necessary.

Nahhh Bring back the Black Death. It did a better job and it changed the course of history(ie that princess that died and the rise of the yoeman).

As to sex ed?

Nahhh just make the find God and that will solve everything. ;)

The world as a whole isn't overpopulated; nowhere near it, given the massive amounts of underutilized land and resources. The problem lies primarily with the inefficent allocation/distribution/transportation of resources, the correlation between poverty and population growth, and the concentration of most of the world's poor in to very small areas.

Ultimately, inefficency and poverty are the problem, not the number of people. Controlling the number of people wouldn't solve the problem; what would address it would be stronger economic growth, better sanitation/health services, better transportation infrastructure, and more efficent markets to distribute/allocate the transported resources according to market prices.

Population growth slows with increasing affluence; whenever we reduce poverty, we address the future problem of overpopulation. All of the contraception and sex education in the world aren't going to work unless we attack the causes of rapid population growth first. And if we do that, they won't really be necessary.

Ah!! A sound rebuttal at last!! Yes, I agree wholeheartedly, but would add that the effect of said inneficiency is one of slowing the development process. Were that strain not on the global population, the human race would be far more stable, and would develop more evenly, rather than in the great starts and stops of warfare and famine.
But yes, I reiterate, I like your point, I like it a great deal.
*hands you a medal*

The world as a whole isn't overpopulated; nowhere near it, given the massive amounts of underutilized land and resources. The problem lies primarily with the inefficent allocation/distribution/transportation of resources, the correlation between poverty and population growth, and the concentration of most of the world's poor in to very small areas.

Ultimately, inefficency and poverty are the problem, not the number of people. Controlling the number of people wouldn't solve the problem; what would address it would be stronger economic growth, better sanitation/health services, better transportation infrastructure, and more efficent markets to distribute/allocate the transported resources according to market prices.

Population growth slows with increasing affluence; whenever we reduce poverty, we address the future problem of overpopulation. All of the contraception and sex education in the world aren't going to work unless we attack the causes of rapid population growth first. And if we do that, they won't really be necessary.
I agree that the answer is economics. Because the better off economically women are the lower the birth rate.

The problem with increased food production is the cost of the extra production. The US could easily, with todays technology, triple food production. Most other advanced nations could do the same. The problem is every unit of increase is more expensive than the previous unit. A farmer can only increase units to the point where there are people able to pay for that last unit. The catch is those with the money buy the first, cheapest, units. That leaves the people with the least money to buy the most expensive units. And it tends to be those with the least money that have the greatest birth rate.

Ironically, it becomes which comes first--lower population leads to prosperity---or prosperity leads to lower population. It is interesting that China has used the lower population option to increase prosperity. The Fundies screamed about the one child policy but that policy has brought new prosperity to China. And with that new prosperity, most are choosing to limit population. Before the policy, the money was split into so many pieces that no one could get enough to prosper. Now all of the money from both sets of grandparents is being funnelled to one child. That child is now old enough to invest that money in business. Result, fastest growing economy in the world.

Capitalism is very effective at population control. The most productive European countries have the most slowly growing populations - several, including Germany (the world's biggest exporter) have a falling population. And capitalism is much nicer than a disease (in most people's opinions).

Did you stop to think for a moment that perhaps it isn't capitalism that is casuing a drop in birth rates? Perhaps, just perhaps, it is actually the fact that the most productive European nations (you actually aren't totally right on this part, however) consist of a larger population of well-educated people. This means three things. One; well educated people have access to birth-control and are more likely to not be opposed to its' use. Two; it is no longer an economic boon to have more children, it is an economic hardship. Three; women whom have been empowered are more likely to want to pursue their own careers as opposed to bearing children (italy is a perfect example of this). Just something to think about.


Originally Posted by Drunk commies deleted
Hey, I've got a fantastic new idea! Instead of releasing smallpox into the world again, let's just spend some cash on sex education, women's clinics in third world countries, and contraception! See, that way we can reduce the birth rate where it matters, in third world nations where people breed quickly. Then we don't have to deal with more than a third of the world's population dying out in the course of a few months and the problems that brings along with it.

Just curious, why do we want to worry about the these 3rd world countries? They are doing a perfectly good job of controlling their own populations. If you decide to waste (and I do say waste) our tax money (which, by the way, we will be paying more if we opted for your solution) on these nations, we will actually get a larger overall population, as we will just be slowing the death's of these peoples. Remember, many are born already with aids, meaning that they are going to die anyways.

As for your Question Yittiria, let me start off by saying this solution is so like you. Anyways, in principle, your solution to overpopulation is sound. If smallpox was released without releasing the antidote, the problem of overpopulation would be temporarily solved and for the most part, the world would continue to function as normal. No animals would be harmed and neither densly, nor sparsly populatied areas would be devestated. As for practical application, however, their are a few flaws. I am not going to go into the science of immunity build up which I am well aware that you understand (how many times will this work?), but I am going to look towards human nature. One; the wealthy would purchase antidotes (no problem with this in my opinion, they are contributing more to society anyways [lets ignore actors here]). Two; people are not all cynical realists like yourself. They will not wish to and will not ever accept this solution. You need look no farther then this thread to see proff of this.

Thus, I would say our time would be better spent looking at some other methods of population runoff. But you already are fully aware of my beliefs in this matter, so I won't expand upon them here.

All we really need is a fullblown war... Free for all!

People dying is the whole problem of overpopulation. You want to kill people in order to prevent them from dying? That's totally absurd.
We do it all the time with animals.

As for your Question Yittiria, let me start off by saying this solution is so like you. Anyways, in principle, your solution to overpopulation is sound. If smallpox was released without releasing the antidote, the problem of overpopulation would be temporarily solved and for the most part, the world would continue to function as normal. No animals would be harmed and neither densly, nor sparsly populatied areas would be devestated. As for practical application, however, their are a few flaws. I am not going to go into the science of immunity build up which I am well aware that you understand (how many times will this work?), but I am going to look towards human nature. One; the wealthy would purchase antidotes (no problem with this in my opinion, they are contributing more to society anyways [lets ignore actors here]). Two; people are not all cynical realists like yourself. They will not wish to and will not ever accept this solution. You need look no farther then this thread to see proff of this.

Oh, come on, Thilm, did you think I actually thought this was a realistic solution? No, see, I think it would have been better had we not eradicated smallpox in the first place. Re-introducing it 1) will never happen except by biological warfare. 2) wouldn't work because we already have the vaccination and the ability to produce more of it.

I just like to see people get mad :D