J. Inneo, Australia

Population control is not really the issue..the issue is space colonization, the technology is already here, but it lacks the political will...the solution is to spread humanity accross the solar system and eventually to the stars....you see...a decreasing population has very negative effects...and in the long term human beings will not be able to adapt to shrinking markets, and a shrinking economy.....the keywords are expansion and co-operation which will inevitably lead to prosperity.

Brian Kean

The best way to eliminate all those human weeds (ala Margaret Sanger is to bring in some Nazi scientists to enlighten us all on Eugenics and show us the light). Oh - I guess they already tried that and founded Planned Parenthood.

But seriously - if every liberal would voluntarily casterate his or her-self that would satisfy the bill quite nicely. There are plenty of chemical options in that regard.

As to coercive options - over my (and who ever tries to enforce that laws - DEAD body) - keep your filthy hands and minds off of my private business.

Melody Venne

I think people should be allowed one child, everyone has the right to experience raising a child. After that they can adopt, because there are plenty of children out there that need a home. I think we should try our best to keep the people in our world alive and healthy, but also keep people from having too many children. We need to take care of the people we already have in this world before we make more.

Mandateeee -

I think the key to halving population growth is not "enforcement", but education. Given a choice, I believe that many women would rather do other things with their lives than just have babies. Actually, it's proven, that as women's education level rises, birth rates go down. So, forcing people by any means is not only unethical, but also unnecessary. If every woman on the planet really had a choice...

W. Czerny -

I thought I'd bring to your attention a certain South American country in which the Roman Catholic church and left wing activists are actually fighting for a bigger population. Birth control to them is associated with coercive programmes aimed at cutting the birth rate. They want more people to help their country industrialize quicker, so the people are denied access to family planning. The women get pregnant but don't actually want more children, so they have dangerous back-street abortions. Over half the hospital beds of that country are occupied by women suffering the effects of these abortions.

Unscrupulous western parties have attempted to manipulate native populations for their own gain for many years and are doing so as you read. ie. Many poor people make for a cheap labour force. And many slightly less poor people make for a wider market to sell to. To stop this particular rot, other things will have to be dismantled at the same time - the things that prop up imperialism, expansionism, exploitation and the like. The reasons for the church and left wing wanting more people would then no longer apply. And their fears of having fewer people would have no foundation either. Now, if you ask me HOW we can do these things, I can only say that I will go away and have a serious think about it and - hopefully - come back to you with something more concrete.


Here's one idea. To develop a device that can be implanted inside the female to render her eggs infertile for as long as it's in place. The reason we should concentrate on the female and not the male is simple. For a start, it would be far easier to implant such a device into the mother at the time her first child is born than to similarly treat the father, who may not even still be in the picture at the time of the birth. Also the female will be far more accepting of the overall aims of population control, especially as it relates to her progeny (a better future life for it with fewer people in the world etc.), than will the male.

The device would be as good as permanent, but, in extenuating circumstances such as the death of the single child later on, it could be removed until such time as a replacement child was born.

Even if some such device were invented and implemented, I can't see it working too well in the underdeveloped countries the way things stand at the moment. A lot of educational groundwork would have to be done. Also, said device hasn't been developed yet. Perhaps it could take the form of tiny 'clothes pegs' that clip both fallopian tubes.

The mechanics is the *easy* part, and women may accept the *need* to have fewer children, but how do you get them to agree to having such an operation carried out on them? With something as basic as the reproductive/mothering instinct, you couldn't give people a CHOICE. In the end, it would probably have to be imposed. Sadly. It's sad because it's actually against nature to try to curb our reproduction. What does everyone else think?

Stephen -

My personal pet project (I have neither the funds or the skill to implement it) is to develop a virus that would inhibit, but not prevent the development of the vas defrins (the duct that carries sperm out of the testes). Complementing this would be a chemical that would be taken by the infected man on the completion of a family planning course that would temporarily let the tube develop for a duration sufficient to conceive a child.

1. I chose a virus that can infect all males in the world as some regions are not as eager for population control. It is also something that would work before the young and stupid could get themselves and the planet into more trouble.

2. By inhibiting the development of the tube and not the testes themselves is that I have no urge to see any behavioral changes. Admittedly not all will share this veiw and would argue that less testosterone would be better. Alternativly (I am not a specialist in this area) the area of the male system that is responsible for the maturation of sperm could be disabled, a shooting blanks idea.

3. The chemical to reverse this virus needs to be avalible to those willing to think about what they are trying to accomplish at no cost, it can not be used to in any way guide our evolution.

Problems to Avoid:
1. The chemical could have no naturally occuring analogs, and would have to be difficult to manufacture to prevent terrorism ie/ infecting a city's water supply, a batch of cola whatever.

2. One country or corporation could not control production or distribution.

3. Probably a multitude of others...

Jim Parks -

My ideas on population dismantlement are pretty strong and may be offensive:

All aid designed to feed people and keep them alive in areas where the natural food supply can not sustain them must end. This includes programs to move water to dry regions. Feeding people creates more people which creates more suffering in the long run.

Medical research designed to prolong human life must end. We certainly don't need a cure for cancer.

Food stamps should be replaced with cigarette stamps and heroin stamps. Needle exchange programs should be eliminated, forcing drug users to share needles. Condoms should be designed to be porous enough to allow viruses through while stopping sperm, so that the spread of AIDS will not be impeded but birth control will be achieved.

Influenza vaccination programs for the elderly should be stopped. Social Security and pensions, along with all government-subsidized programs to help the elderly should be totally eliminated.

Suicide centers should be built where any individual so desiring may painlessly end his life -- and the wealthier countries could even encourage this by paying a bonus to the deceased's family. This could be implemented in a scaled system, so that, for example, a 50-year-old who uses the suicide facility might bring $100,000 to his family, whereas a 65-year old might only be worth $40,000, so as to encourage "early retirement". :) In-home service should be available for those who can not travel.

Government-subsidized sterilization should be available, and bonuses should be paid to those who undergo sterilization. Bonuses should be higher for those with no children or one child versus those with two or more children.

Substantial benefits (lower taxes, preference for government jobs, etc.) should be given to couples who do not burden the planet with their offspring. The benefits should be reduced when the couple has one child and eliminated when the couple has a second child. Education should be provided for one child. Expenses for the education of any further children should be billed to the responsible parents.

Castration should be offered as an alternative to most prison sentences, not just sex offenses. Castration eliminates the capability of a criminal to reproduce while reducing aggressive behavior.

Just a few ideas.

Good luck with the page. Unfortunately, I think the war, plagues, famine, etc. are going to be the only real ways to get people to stop breeding. If we could just come up with a virus that would make anyone with an IQ < 120 unable to reproduce, that would be ideal. This is not as elitist as it sounds. On a pragmatic level, it is easier to explain to a more intelligent person the benefits of conservation and birth control.

What's the song say? "I look around everywhere and see that only stupid people are breeding?"

Reply to Jim from Alex -

I heard that song a few weeks ago and thought that verse summed up the whole problem -- that the birth rate amongst intelligent/educated people is falling, while the rate amongst the stupid/insensitive/irrational/uncaring is growing - and most of their offspring are unwanted and end up as cannon fodder. There's too much pussy-footing around and too much emphasis on human rights/civil liberties etc. I know this kind of talk scares alot of people and invites allusions to Hitler and his 'final solution'. Controlling the population is not a racial or ethnic process. You get stupid people everywhere, and they should be discouraged from reproducing in such vast numbers. 'Discouraged from reproducing in such vast numbers' is the key phrase. No one should be killed. If you saw alcoholic parents battering their child in the street, would you not stop them? That, in effect, is what potentially happens every time such people bring a new life into the world, and yet nobody lifts a finger to stop them. There's something wrong here.

 [Bonsai tree]

Go Back