Democrats figure World has too many People on it...

[dogtag]

What to do about that ? Let's kill a whole bunch of 'em. Great.
That will save electricity, food, housing which means fewer trees
being cut down. Also means fewer people polluting the air with their
exhaling carbon dioxide and overloading the sewer systems.
Nothing but plusses. How to do it ? Cause crime to skyrocket. kill
a whole bunch with vaxes, start a war which will cause starvation
in Africa and some Mideast Countries. If that doesn't kill enough of 'em,
provoke Putin enough and he'll nuke the rest of 'em.
But what about us, won't we get vaporized ? No, we've got bunkers,
and all our billionaire friends have bunkers. It's a win, win.
But how will we survive ? We're all stupid. Crap, forgot about that.

[dryheat]

If it wasn't for war, pestilence and starvation, we'd be up to our asses in people.

[Allen]

If it wasn't for war, pestilence and starvation, we'd be up to our asses in people.

Yep. War, famine, and natural disasters are natures population control.

The way things are heading though looks like the making of a civil war. But first, we are to become unarmed, as in illegal to own a gun.

[dryheat]

The old tried and true don't work as well as they used to. Diseases are cured. Do gooders feed the hungry. In the real Good Old Days there were only about 10 million people on the whole planet.
How are we ever going to end hunger if we keep feeding them?

[Mark in Ottawa]

The exponential growth of the World's population really is a huge problem for the near future. So far, improvements in agriculture have allowed the world to still be fed but by 2100 there are expected to be about 10.9 billion people and then level off (see https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...f-the-century/). Note that in 1950, the world population was 2.5 Billion. Most of the growth will be in Asia and Africa.

As others have pointed out, historically, disease killed a lot of people but even pandemics like COVID have "only" killed 6 million - a minute fraction of the population. Modern medicine is a two edged sword. Great for saving people but perhaps a problem for the World. A modern nuclear war would do better in population control but not if it killed us (a real moral dilemma).

The Chinese government imposed a "one child" policy to try to control their population but after 35 years have dropped it. Not sure what the answer is. If the Chinese were unable to suppress population growth then there is little likelihood that anyone else will be successful. given that in much of the world, children are considered to be your old age pension.

[Vern Humphrey]

The exponential growth of the World's population really is a huge problem for the near future. So far, improvements in agriculture have allowed the world to still be fed but by 2100 there are expected to be about 10.9 billion people and then level off (see https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...f-the-century/). Note that in 1950, the world population was 2.5 Billion. Most of the growth will be in Asia and Africa.

As others have pointed out, historically, disease killed a lot of people but even pandemics like COVID have "only" killed 6 million - a minute fraction of the population. Modern medicine is a two edged sword. Great for saving people but perhaps a problem for the World. A modern nuclear war would do better in population control but not if it killed us (a real moral dilemma).

The Chinese government imposed a "one child" policy to try to control their population but after 35 years have dropped it. Not sure what the answer is. If the Chinese were unable to suppress population growth then there is little likelihood that anyone else will be successful. given that in much of the world, children are considered to be your old age pension.

When I was in Singapore, the country was over-run with young mainland Chinese men, looking for Chinese brides. Under the "one child" policy, girls were aborted because everyone wanted sons, and there was a real shortage of marriage age women in China.

[barretcreek]

When I was in Singapore, the country was over-run with young mainland Chinese men, looking for Chinese brides. Under the "one child" policy, girls were aborted because everyone wanted sons, and there was a real shortage of marriage age women in China.

Yes.

[Art]

Interestingly a lot of countries you wouldn't expect have declining populations. Vietnam's birth rate is below the replacement rate as is Brazil's. Mexico is barely holding level with a birthrate per woman of 2.1 children. European and North American native born birth rates are very low with populations only growing (sometimes) because of immigration. Even China is now way below the replacement rate at 1.7 live births per woman and they figure that between 100 and 200 towns and villiages in Japan will be uninhabited in 50 years because of a catastrophically low birth rate and almost total ban on immigration.

The problem may be taking care of itself.

- - - Updated - - -

When I was in Singapore, the country was over-run with young mainland Chinese men, looking for Chinese brides. Under the "one child" policy, girls were aborted because everyone wanted sons, and there was a real shortage of marriage age women in China.

Or murdered. Especially in rural china infanticide of infant girls was common. Recent relaxation of the one child policy has mitigated that to some degree in the last few years but it still happens.

[Allen]

Interestingly a lot of countries you wouldn't expect have declining populations. Vietnam's birth rate is below the replacement rate as is Brazil's. Mexico is barely holding level with a birthrate per woman of 2.1 children. European and North American native born birth rates are very low with populations only growing (sometimes) because of immigration. Even China is now way below the replacement rate at 1.7

Many from Mexico and China are HERE and populating.

Going to the local WalMarts is like being at the Alamo. Just a couple of years ago you rarely saw a hispanic. Now it is mostly what you see and a couple is never with just 2 or 3 kids. They bring 6 or 7 with them and this is during the middle of the day. You don't see all the ones that are in school.

[dryheat]

I remember when our population hit 200M. It's over 350M now and growing. If Mexico is losing population it's because all of S. America is moving here along with people from all parts of the world. Some nice people, some not so nice. And now things are getting tougher so even more will head for good old America. We'll take them in. There are no illegal immigrants now, they are asylum seekers. Whole different thing.

[Art]

I remember when our population hit 200M. It's over 350M now and growing. If Mexico is losing population it's because all of S. America is moving here along with people from all parts of the world. Some nice people, some not so nice. And now things are getting tougher so even more will head for good old America. We'll take them in. There are no illegal immigrants now, they are asylum seekers. Whole different thing.

yup. Our native population is shrinking (only native born Latinos have a slightly positive birthrate at about 2.2 live births per woman) but we are taking in too many immigrants. This country could do just fine with 250,000,000 to 275,000,000 people. Most Latino immigration, legal and illegal now is from central America and northern South America because that's where things are worst, especially Nicaragua and Venezuela. Since papa Biden rang the dinner bell though, we're getting people from all over including large numbers of Africans, eastern Europeans and east Asians.

[dogtag]

Pretty soon those places down south will be empty, and we can move there.

[Allen]

Pretty soon those places down south will be empty, and we can move there.

They're making more. We're just their meal ticket.