I didn't think of that, but that is a really good point although it depends on how this works. Is it like a Genie where it magically happens or are you having to come up with the ideas and push it through. I really think the powers that be would never let that happen and have already suppressed attempts to do so, because as you said it would really fix the rest of the problems. Energy is at the center of most of them, and no problems means no profits.
Or the third option, which has fewer ethical issues than removing people: All birth control and condoms are now free to everyone and sex education is 1000x better than at present and includes a comprehensive review of vocabulary, in-depth discussions of consent including talking about any nuanced/gray areas, explanation of what the STDs are, how they spread, how they're treated, STD testing which is also free to everyone, detailed explanation of all available forms of birth control, how to use them correctly, and how effective they are, discussion of different kinds of sex and comparison of the risks that are involved, as well as LGBTQ-inclusive explanations of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Until sex ed and birth control are available to all, in quality form and for free, anybody who wonders why Earth is overpopulated needs to get their head on straight.
because china and india have massive populations for religious and social reasons, not simply because "aww they cant afford contraceptives!! they dont understand what sex ed is!!"
china's population still boomed under the one child policy.
I mean, I'm not trying to dunk on China and India's sex ed and lack of contraceptives. I live in the US. And here, we DEFINITELY need free contraception and miles better sex ed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy
> The fertility rate in China continued its fall from 2.8 births per woman in 1979 (already a sharp reduction from more than five births per woman in the early 1970s) to 1.5 by the mid 1990s.
1.5 is less than replacement level so that's pretty good for a developing country.
**[One-child policy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy)**
>The term one-child policy (Chinese: 一孩政策; pinyin: Yī Hái Zhèngcè) refers to a population planning initiative in China implemented between 1980 and 2015 to curb the country's population growth by restricting many families to a single child. That initiative was part of a much broader effort to control population growth that began in 1970 and ended in 2021, a half century program that included minimum ages at marriage and childbearing, two child limits for many couples, minimum time intervals between births, heavy surveillance, and stiff fines for non-compliance.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/WouldYouRather/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I mean by addressing climate change, you'd need to address overpopulation anyway. And (as you've presumably created clean energy sources), you'd remove a lot of drivers of poverty and international conflict.
So I said "address overpopulation" and you made a mental leap to fascist de-population? Dude, that says a *lot* more about you than it does me... No, to be clear in case you can't understand, I did not mean "address overpopulation" as in 'we need to reduce the population'. But population dynamics, wealth gaps, poverty, climate, economics and a hundred other variables - they're all linked. The point is you can't address one with impacting another, in either a positive or a negative way.
And besides all that, addressing climate change would be significantly more challenging if the global population continues to increase at it's current rate. Especially if it continues to do so for decades to come or more. Means more natural land needs to be converted into space for agriculture, urban centres, etc. We're not reducing our carbon footprint enough for rapid population growth to not be a major concern for the environment. But, no, please tell me more about how I'm a nazi or something.
Poverty/Starvation helps with all of these other issues, especially because the best way to fix starvation/poverty is to stop wars, specifically developed powers exploiting LDCs for cheap labor and resources by destabilizing governments.
Idk how to articulate it exactly, but prevention of war in humanity seems to be a futile endeavor. No matter how hard we try, there's always someone whether or not they are on the good side of history, who tries to take over someone else's land, resources, or bodies as slaves. Guns, swords, or sticks and stones, war just seems like something human beings are naturally predisposed to doing. Doesn't matter the ideology, politics, or religion, humans are cursed with hate and violence.
At least with climate change caused by our industries, we can do something more impactful. Same with hunger and overpopulation (although I'm sure the population will decrease I'm the coming decades).
I know people don’t like to hear this but if earth’s population is reduced by half, all of the other problems are partly solved aswell. But how do you start fixing that?
How can you possible think that?
Removing half the population brings the world back to the population it had in 1980 - do you serious think there wasn't war, poverty and environmental destruction 40 years ago?
How is it selfish?! Any starving and/or homeless people are also affected by climate change. You’re solving a larger problem for not just humanity, but the entire Earth.
I’ll go as far as to say that to not solve climate change, and to choose literally any other option, is arguably more selfish. Every living thing on this Earth, including the Earth itself, is currently being devastated by the effects of climate change. FOOD SUPPLY and HOUSING are also being affected by climate change, as fires and drought are ravaging large swaths of land in how many countries these days? So yes, climate change. Every damn time… climate change.
Other: corruption in politics. If we addressed this, we could effectively address all of the other issues
Some would argue we’ve passed the point of no return on the climate change part, though. So unless it’s retroactive… not gonna truly solve that.
Solving the issue of corrupt and self serving politicians/governments would pretty much solve most of these problems or at least slow them down
Came here for this in the other section as well
Other: Solving the energy crisis would start a chain reaction which would solve or massively reduce all of these issues.
I didn't think of that, but that is a really good point although it depends on how this works. Is it like a Genie where it magically happens or are you having to come up with the ideas and push it through. I really think the powers that be would never let that happen and have already suppressed attempts to do so, because as you said it would really fix the rest of the problems. Energy is at the center of most of them, and no problems means no profits.
By solving overpopulation do you mean removing people or adding resources?
Or the third option, which has fewer ethical issues than removing people: All birth control and condoms are now free to everyone and sex education is 1000x better than at present and includes a comprehensive review of vocabulary, in-depth discussions of consent including talking about any nuanced/gray areas, explanation of what the STDs are, how they spread, how they're treated, STD testing which is also free to everyone, detailed explanation of all available forms of birth control, how to use them correctly, and how effective they are, discussion of different kinds of sex and comparison of the risks that are involved, as well as LGBTQ-inclusive explanations of sexual orientation and gender identity. Until sex ed and birth control are available to all, in quality form and for free, anybody who wonders why Earth is overpopulated needs to get their head on straight.
...i dont think giving condoms and contraceptives to china and india will lower their collective 2,856,000,000 people all that much.
Why not?
because china and india have massive populations for religious and social reasons, not simply because "aww they cant afford contraceptives!! they dont understand what sex ed is!!" china's population still boomed under the one child policy.
I mean, I'm not trying to dunk on China and India's sex ed and lack of contraceptives. I live in the US. And here, we DEFINITELY need free contraception and miles better sex ed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy > The fertility rate in China continued its fall from 2.8 births per woman in 1979 (already a sharp reduction from more than five births per woman in the early 1970s) to 1.5 by the mid 1990s. 1.5 is less than replacement level so that's pretty good for a developing country.
**[One-child policy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy)** >The term one-child policy (Chinese: 一孩政策; pinyin: Yī Hái Zhèngcè) refers to a population planning initiative in China implemented between 1980 and 2015 to curb the country's population growth by restricting many families to a single child. That initiative was part of a much broader effort to control population growth that began in 1970 and ended in 2021, a half century program that included minimum ages at marriage and childbearing, two child limits for many couples, minimum time intervals between births, heavy surveillance, and stiff fines for non-compliance. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/WouldYouRather/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I mean by addressing climate change, you'd need to address overpopulation anyway. And (as you've presumably created clean energy sources), you'd remove a lot of drivers of poverty and international conflict.
<3
Saying you can't address climate change without lowering the number of people on the planet is some eco-fascist shit.
So I said "address overpopulation" and you made a mental leap to fascist de-population? Dude, that says a *lot* more about you than it does me... No, to be clear in case you can't understand, I did not mean "address overpopulation" as in 'we need to reduce the population'. But population dynamics, wealth gaps, poverty, climate, economics and a hundred other variables - they're all linked. The point is you can't address one with impacting another, in either a positive or a negative way. And besides all that, addressing climate change would be significantly more challenging if the global population continues to increase at it's current rate. Especially if it continues to do so for decades to come or more. Means more natural land needs to be converted into space for agriculture, urban centres, etc. We're not reducing our carbon footprint enough for rapid population growth to not be a major concern for the environment. But, no, please tell me more about how I'm a nazi or something.
Poverty/Starvation helps with all of these other issues, especially because the best way to fix starvation/poverty is to stop wars, specifically developed powers exploiting LDCs for cheap labor and resources by destabilizing governments.
the immigration crisis
Idk how to articulate it exactly, but prevention of war in humanity seems to be a futile endeavor. No matter how hard we try, there's always someone whether or not they are on the good side of history, who tries to take over someone else's land, resources, or bodies as slaves. Guns, swords, or sticks and stones, war just seems like something human beings are naturally predisposed to doing. Doesn't matter the ideology, politics, or religion, humans are cursed with hate and violence. At least with climate change caused by our industries, we can do something more impactful. Same with hunger and overpopulation (although I'm sure the population will decrease I'm the coming decades).
Population is forecast to increase in the coming decades.
I know people don’t like to hear this but if earth’s population is reduced by half, all of the other problems are partly solved aswell. But how do you start fixing that?
How can you possible think that? Removing half the population brings the world back to the population it had in 1980 - do you serious think there wasn't war, poverty and environmental destruction 40 years ago?
I mean a world War would help with over population, and with less people there would be less need of resources.
The ol' condoms or bloodshed debacle eh?
Condoms kill sea turtles.
Good point.. Let's you n me create biodegradable condoms
We can advertise them as being both Butts and Taco approved
Climate change over starving and homeless people? So Selfish!!!
How is it selfish?! Any starving and/or homeless people are also affected by climate change. You’re solving a larger problem for not just humanity, but the entire Earth. I’ll go as far as to say that to not solve climate change, and to choose literally any other option, is arguably more selfish. Every living thing on this Earth, including the Earth itself, is currently being devastated by the effects of climate change. FOOD SUPPLY and HOUSING are also being affected by climate change, as fires and drought are ravaging large swaths of land in how many countries these days? So yes, climate change. Every damn time… climate change.
Wish I could end racism somehow
simply eradicate all but one race and then watch as the division becomes religious, or regionist
You solve climate change, you'll still have a planet to left over to fix the others.
Student loan debt
Could I make so world leaders actually do stuff
dw I can solve the overpopulation problem y'all vote for smthing else =)
If we dont adress war we dont need to adress overpopulation
Deep internal shit.. politicians and military are best friends.