Topic: Overpopulation and the Unemployed

[mouse_clicker]

I think the ideal way to give more Americans jobs is for vastly overpopulated countries like India, Indonesia, and Bangladesh, to employ strict population controls similar to what China is using. Think about how many times you've seen labels on products that say "Made in China" or "Made in India" and then think about why- the reason, obviously, is because labor is much cheaper in these countries which makes the products produced there MUCH cheaper to make, greatly increasing the profit a company can make. Labor is so much less expensive in these countries because of their vast overpopulation. There are more people than jobs in these countries, which leaves a huge portion of them unemployed. They work for so little because it's really the only job they can get- they're desperate. Because of such cheaper labor, as we all know, companies are flocking places like India, China, and Indonesia to manufacture their products, which in turns takes away jobs from Americans since the product would have otherwise been manufactured here. One solution to this problem is for these overpopulated countries to employ population controls, which will, over time, greatly reduce the amount of people living there. This will greatly reduce the amount of unemployed people, making it less practical to manufacture items in foreign countries given that labor isn't nearly as cheap as before since the unemployed aren't nearly as desperate. Products will again be manufactured in America, giving jobs back to Americans. Obviously this solution in of itself isn't very practical, but in theory it could really help the economy of many countries.

[Berny]

I'm assuming you just pasted this from the other thread (in which you cheated so as not to SPAM). But now you have resorted to redundancy. I hate people like you. And so, I give you my pasting:

Rather than resorting to population controls, I think maybe gaining some economic independence would be a good idea. Sadly, the best paying jobs in those countries are from U.S. factories. Whether or not this is enought to live is debatable, but U.S. business is helping a lot over there. But your point was joblessness over here, so I suppose you are right, but businesses are just trying to do their duty as a business by maximizing their profits.

So yeah, those countries' economies have essentially become dependent on the U.S. and businesses have become dependent on them. It's a self perpetuating problem unfortunately. I think an ethical route should be found before they resort to executing children after number 2.  

[Ocarina Blue]

Reducing population will not necessarily reduce poverty. Small countries like places in the Pacific and Western Africa are some the poorest countries on the world. Besides, countries that are gaining huge growth from outsourcing (e.g. India) probably won't be willing to take away a fundamental freedom so they can diminish their most valuable resource and help rich countries get richer.

The problem of reliance on the U.S.A. will fix itself eventually: poorer countries will gain wealth from company's willingness to employ them, and their wealth will increase. When the scales are more balanced, it will no longer be efficient to outsource, as the transportation of goods etc. adds to the cost. Therefore, companies will employ people from their own country. The scales will tip, and some other country will become a massive super-power. The only problem here is government intervention: Bush has clearly set his goal as being to prevent any other country from approaching the U.S.A.'s military and economic might (it's somewhere in his foreign policy thingiewhatsit.)

Although the idea of making everyone as rich as everyone else (and therefore providing everyone with a job) is a pretty neato concept, it tends to not work so well, and probably won't catch on in the U.S.A. anytime soon

[KDR_11k]

This got anything to do with that recent article about outsourcing game development?

[mouse_clicker]

Not at all- it's just a thought that popped into my head.

Ocarina Blue: I never said it was perfect. Still, though, I'm sure these countries' overpopulation has something to do with American unemployment, even if it's not a big factor.  

[Ian Sane]

What exactly do you mean by "population control"?  Do you mean limiting the amount of children a person is allowed to have?  That's a HUGE violation of human rights.  Any human being is allowed to have as many kids as they want.  Nobody has the right to trample all over that freedom.  I'd rather the US economy turn to complete crap than for people in other countries be treated like livestock.

Plus population control in China has done nothing but cause a really big problem: shortage of women.  Since people are restricted in the amount of children they can have many people prefer to have a son instead of daughter so now there's way more men than women.  This of course creates a whole new problem in terms of population.  What would really help China is if they were more slack about people leaving the country.  If people had the freedom to come and go as they pleased then they wouldn't have any overpopulation problems.

The whole problem with the concept of population control is that you're treating human beings as no more than a statistic like you're counting ants in an ant colony.

[Bill Aurion]

"I'd rather the US economy turn to complete crap than for people in other countries be treated like livestock."

Agreed...Plus, in a capitalistic society such as ours, it's not possible to avoid unemployment...It's a nice dream, but to completely drop unemployment we'd have to switch over to socialism, which isn't going to happen anytime soon...

[mouse_clicker]

Quote
What exactly do you mean by "population control"? Do you mean limiting the amount of children a person is allowed to have? That's a HUGE violation of human rights. Any human being is allowed to have as many kids as they want. Nobody has the right to trample all over that freedom. I'd rather the US economy turn to complete crap than for people in other countries be treated like livestock.

So you'd rather have these people continue living in their own filth? Have you ever BEEN to a country that was overpopulated, Ian? I used to live in Japan and visited South Korea and Singapore frequently- I've experienced what overpopulation feels like. How is population control, which insures the longterm well being and health of a people, more inhumane than letting them have 6 or 7 kids each when they can't even feed the first 2, much less house them? Overpopulation is the bane of humanity and is FAR more important than any morals you may think apply to the situation. Morals are a human creation, while the threats of overpopulation are universal. I think you're vastly undermining the problem. Maybe you'll have a clean conscious NOW, knowing you didn't restrict anyone's human rights, but can you live with the knowledge that it will cause living conditions so horrible you can't even imagine them? I fail to see how these people are living in overpopulated countries is less of a human rights issue than any perceived problem you may have with population control. Wake up, Ian- if humans continue to overpopulate, it WILL be the beginning of our end.

Quote
Plus, in a capitalistic society such as ours, it's not possible to avoid unemployment...It's a nice dream, but to completely drop unemployment we'd have to switch over to socialism, which isn't going to happen anytime soon...

Grrr....... read my whole post, people! I never said my idea was going to completely eliminate unemployment! I never even said it was practical at all- in fact, I said it was very impractical. But you can't just write off unemployment as an unavoidable side effect of our kind of economy- yes that's true, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make it as small a problem as possible. Ignoring it will only make it grow bigger.    

[Bill Aurion]

And I never said my reply was in direct response of yours... ^_^

[slacker]

Population control is a touchy topic.  I believe in due time, things will balance itself out.  A country that is over populated will eventually starve to death.  It is the law of nature.  That being said, as under developed countries begin to modernize economically and technologically, its population will level off and eventually decrease if there were no immigration.  One of the reasons why under developed countries like China and India have a large population has to do with health.  These countries don't have affordable healthcare, and so as a result, a lot of people's offspring never make it to adulthood.  So the idea is the more kids, the more likely you will have one that reaches adulthood and hopefully take care of you in your elderly years.  Now, as a result of improving economics and technology, today's children in these countries have a lower mortality rate, but the mentality of the people has not caught up to the economic reality.  Thus, they have a booming population.  Also, the lack of access to contraceptives also play a role.  Basically, to fight population control is to educate and increase the standard quality of living.  So, in the end, these countries must develop and it will probably take a couple of generation for population increase to subside.  I believe China has their situation under control.  I think the rules for reproduction there has loosen a bit, but instead of throwing you in jail, they just make you pay extra taxes.  As for the United States, most of the population increase is related to immigration.  There is a pattern, and in due time, it will balance out.  It is just how long will we have to wait.

[Ian Sane]

"How is population control, which insures the longterm well being and health of a people, more inhumane than letting them have 6 or 7 kids each when they can't even feed the first 2, much less house them?"

It's inhumane because YOU are deciding who gets to be born, who doesn't, who gets to have kids, and who doesn't.  YOU and no other human being have the right to have control over any other human being because we're all equal.  That's the ultimate problem with the whole concept.  Someone else is making a huge decision on the behalf of other people.  Who appoints them and what gives them the right to make such a decision?  What makes them above the rest of us?

"Morals are a human creation, while the threats of overpopulation are universal."

If morality is a human creation then why do you care about anyone else?  If you're concerned for the welfare of other people, which you are, then you have some morals.  You may not call it the same thing but they're there or else you wouldn't think it's wrong for people to live in an overpopulated country.  Overpopulation may be a problem but the ends don't justify the means.  Controlling the population is wrong and therefore you cannot do it even if you feel your intentions are good.  If you think about it killing everyone who is sick or elderly would be a productive way of trimming the population but few would consider that an acceptable thing to do.  Or so I hope anyway.

Controlling the population growth to "solve" the problem of overpopulation is no better than restricting freedom of thought because difference in opinion can lead to conflict.  Freedom can cause sadness and pain but it can also cause joy and love.  But I would rather take the good with the bad in exchange for the ability to decide my own fate and choose my own life.  Population control restricts freedom and that's why I'm against it.

[mouse_clicker]

So you'd rather people choose their own fate and live in inevitable poverty, disease, famine, and filth as opposed to having a loose population control that will insure the good health and well being of the entire nation? Truly you do follow a strange logic, Ian.

Let me put it as simply as I can- if overpopulation is allowed to continue, the human race will go extinct. It's not that I'm ignoring human created morals, I just recognize their incredible insignificance next to the laws of nature. I really don't think you understand just what kind of conditions these people live in! Most are incredibly poor, very hungry, living almost elbow to elbow while disease and famine run rampant! How can you possibly preach the inhumanity of population control when the very lack of it creates conditions so horrible you would be left speechless were you to fully grasp the concept of them.  

[Ian Sane]

"if overpopulation is allowed to continue, the human race will go extinct."

You can't prove that and I don't believe it.  Humanity didn't have birth control for thousands of years and somehow they survived.  Now we have that option and we may go extinct?  It won't happen.

"It's not that I'm ignoring human created morals, I just recognize their incredible insignificance next to the laws of nature."

How ironic that you talk of the laws of nature yet at the same time support something that greatly interferes with nature.  Population control is an attempt to control nature and thus conflicts with the laws of nature.  In nature if a species faces overpopulation a large percentage of the population dies out and the population slowly rebuilds itself.

"So you'd rather people choose their own fate and live in inevitable poverty, disease, famine, and filth as opposed to having a loose population control that will insure the good health and well being of the entire nation?"

I would rather have freedom then live in a manner that someone else decides as "good".  Most people feel the same way.  In fact you probably do too.  I believe that a religious life is "better" than a non-religious one yet you would not want me to force you to live that life because I think it's better for you.  You would consider that a huge violation of your rights and freedoms.  And population control is the same thing because someone else is deciding for me.

Here's another example.  Let's say that a couple has five children but is not realistically able to afford to take care of them and as a result the whole family lives in poverty.  If this same family had only two kids they would be able to live confortably.  If you gave them the option to "dispose" of three of their children so that the parents and the two remaining children could have a better life do you think they would take it?  Not likely.  Most people would rather live in poverty than give up their own children.  The ability to have children is regarded by most to be just as valuable and precious as children themselves.  If you asked everyone on Earth if they would be willing to restrict the amount of kids they can have how many people do you really think would go for it?  I wouldn't and I imagine a lot of other people wouldn't either.  Therefore you can't force people to be restricted in that way if they don't wish it.  If you want to only have one kid to reduce the population than go ahead but you can't force me to do the same.

Imagine if the roles were reversed and the population was too low and there was a law that everyone HAD to get married and HAD to have at least three kids.  Would you approve of that?

[mouse_clicker]

Quote
You can't prove that and I don't believe it. Humanity didn't have birth control for thousands of years and somehow they survived. Now we have that option and we may go extinct? It won't happen.

I don't need to prove it, it's common sense. Besides, homo sapiens have only existed for about 30,000 years and are just now starting to overpopulate- of course we never had a worldwide problem before, although isolated places like Europe during the 1300's were vastly overpopulated and overcrowded until the Plague hit the region and killed off a third of the people.

Quote
How ironic that you talk of the laws of nature yet at the same time support something that greatly interferes with nature. Population control is an attempt to control nature and thus conflicts with the laws of nature. In nature if a species faces overpopulation a large percentage of the population dies out and the population slowly rebuilds itself.

You raise a good point, but our incredible overpopulation is due almost soley to the fact that we have all but dominated our natural population control- disease. Without disease at the very least an artifical form of population control must be implemented to take its place. I agree with you that population control does restrict personal freedom, but it's only in the interest of the greater good of the nation. Americans have a hard time grasping this- we've been engrained with the idea that we should be free to live however we like, and anything less than that complete freedom is heinous and deplorable. What you don't understand is that this particular freedom will inevitably come at the cost of many lives, many people's health, and many people's well being. In essence, you want people to live in hell on Earth simply to retain one freedom. You need to look beyond the personal level, Ian, and on to the bigger picture. Don't try to deny the effects of overpopulation, either- if you attempt to refute me in that respect you will only run into a brick wall. The problems that will come of overpopulation trump ANY civil liberty you can possible conceive of.  

Quote
Imagine if the roles were reversed and the population was too low and there was a law that everyone HAD to get married and HAD to have at least three kids. Would you approve of that?

I wouldn't necessarily like the idea, no, but I would certainly comply if it were for the good of the race.

[ThePerm]

well there is lways propaganda...if you don't make it into law you can always propagandize people into deciding to have no more then 2 people.  Also if you look back on things....

before the baby boom my granparents owuld have like 5 or 6 kids..bfore them commonly there were families of 12......our parents prolyl only had 1-3 kids.... thanks to the nuclear family propaganda.

[Bill Aurion]

Actually there is some truth behind MC's statement that the human race will cease to exist due to overpopulation...Actually, as with any species, Homo sapien will continue to grow until it hits it's glass ceiling, the point where the population exceeds each individuals needs to survive(this includes territory and nutrition)...Then populations will drop, and the toughest will survive until more food grows...Sound familiar?

The only thing that could cause our species to become extinct is a mass natural disaster or...ourselves...

[Ian Sane]

MC I can see where you are going and I think your intentions are good I just don't agreed with your method.  You say that an over populated world will lead to Hell on Earth.  To me having our freedoms squandered would be Hell on Earth.  We have a different idea of what would be Hell and both of us want to avoid it.

"You need to look beyond the personal level, Ian, and on to the bigger picture."

Well that's were we obviously see things differently.  I'm seeing people as individuals while you're seeing them as a group.

"Americans have a hard time grasping this- we've been engrained with the idea that we should be free to live however we like, and anything less than that complete freedom is heinous and deplorable."

Actually my strong importance in freedom is due to my religious beliefs not democracy.

Here's what would worry me the most if population control was widely enforced: I'm worried that the violation of our rights wouldn't stop there.  When people have power they often go too far and I'm afraid that if someone had the power to decide how many children we could have they would have the power to go further and decide what people based on race, ideals, beliefs, genetics, etc would be allowed to breed and who wouldn't.  I am seeing the big picture in the sense that I don't see a bright future if the good intentions of population control spin out of control like the good intentions of most ideas.

Anyway I've made my point so I'll leave it at that.

[manunited4eva22]

Mouse: read some stuff on neo-malthusian ideas.  You seems to be along those lines.  People who wish to disprove him, read anti maltusian stuff, that or take human geography (ap or college credit) to get a better idea.

[mouse_clicker]

Quote
Well that's were we obviously see things differently. I'm seeing people as individuals while you're seeing them as a group.

Seeing humans as individuals is not advantageous to the well being of the race as a whole, though- that's really my whole point.

Quote
Actually my strong importance in freedom is due to my religious beliefs not democracy.

Religious ethics don't generally deviate from democracy, though, at least not modern religious ethics. In any case, my reason for pointing out that Americans can't quite grasp the whole concept is that we live in a country where the overall well being of the nation isn't in jeopardy, which gives us the ability to focus on individual liberties. In other words, we don't live in it so we can't quite understand the magnitude of the problem.  

[Hostile Creation]

Honestly, the best method for eliminating overpopulation would be to kill the old, the ill, the inhuman (mental retardation, extreme deformities, etc.), and the disobediant.  Statistically, anyway.

And if a plague does kill off half of China?  Problem solved, and it'll be just the same as your plan, MC, except people will die instead of not being born (meaning they get work done during the interval).  I think people should just wise up and do it for themselves, and if they don't, they've damned themselves.  Just as well.

But whatever floats yer boat.

[manunited4eva22]

Better way is to kill off atleast half of those able to bare children, but that has nothing to do with reality. Other things that have nothing to do with reality:  A plague killing 500 million people in a modern country.

[Bill Aurion]

Europe was pretty modern as well when the Black Plague went through, so don't just wave it off...And don't try and say that technology wasn't as advanced as it is today, back then, because there will always be diseases that are evolving past our known defenses...

[ThePerm]

hmmm the persecution of cats....the squalor of fuedal life all made the plague flourish......
if you look back at the average intelligence of people in europe it actually went down significantly
after the fall of the roman empire.....it didn't rise again till the renaisance....so basically the clergy  and royalty purposely created misinformation and squandered education in orde to remain in power....the romans had steam technology and performed brain surgery....after the romans.....nothing for a long time.

[Hostile Creation]

Quote
Other things that have nothing to do with reality: A plague killing 500 million people in a modern country.

Modern by American or Western European standards, yes.  By Chinese standards, not so unrealistic.  I doubt it'd kill that many people, though.  It was what we literary folks like to call a hyperbole.

[Berny]

Mouse, it's like you said in another thread. Nature tends to take care of things. When things get to crowded, disease flourishes and people will inevitably die. Governments don't need to kill people or limit the number of births, because that will happen on its own. That is one option. The other is that the governments DO something to educate the people on the reasons why they shouldn't have 7 children for financial reasons. Having enough money to support a child should be a MAJOR consideration of anyone who wants to become a parent no matter how much they want to have children.

Some one else (I think it was Ocarina blue) mentioned that over time, these nations will accumulate enough wealth and resources from American factories to be economically independent. This will also help to solve our nation's joblessness as unions will form and the workers will demand higher wages for a higher standard of living. Nike and the rest of them may pull out, and return to deomestic manufacturing. They'd probably get around a lot of tariffs and import taxes that way, too.

Something obviously must be done, and like you said, this is probably not the most pressing factor in America's joblessness. But the poverty of those mostly South East Asian countries is a serious problem and should be dealt with.