Morality Followup: Population Control

--Morality with Motamedi followup: population control

On the Bonus Show: Scott Kelly returns to Earth, a grisly religion-tainted murder in Russia, the efficiency of recycling, more...

24/7 Voicemail Line: (219)-2DAVIDP

Timely news is important! We upload new clips every day, 6-8 stories! Make sure to subscribe!

Broadcast on March 3, 2016 --Donate via Bitcoin: 15evMNUN1g4qdRxywbHFCKNfdCTjxtztfj

--Donate via Ethereum: 0xe3E6b538E1CD21D48Ff1Ddf2D744ea8B95Ba1930

--Donate via Litecoin: LhNVT9j5gQj8U1AbwLzwfoc5okDoiFn4Mt

--Donate via Bitcoin: 15evMNUN1g4qdRxywbHFCKNfdCTjxtztfj

--Donate via Ethereum: 0xe3E6b538E1CD21D48Ff1Ddf2D744ea8B95Ba1930

--Donate via Litecoin: LhNVT9j5gQj8U1AbwLzwfoc5okDoiFn4Mt

[izzyira]

The IQ one is great, we should do that. Too many dumb people have children and that brings us all down. Let's try not to turn Idiocracy into a documentary.

[rudai]

Encourage small or no families - morally, economy, educationally, politically

[MusicMenacer]

Love all the interesting takes on this question. Go Josh!

[Cy]

It's actually the number of rich and not poor that really matters as they consume the most resources. Dealing without population control without factoring in affluence and consumption misses the elephant in the room.

[markcolburn]

The rapid expansion in the human population ended 50 years ago; growth rates have been falling ever since. The simplest way to reduce population is giving women control over their own fertility and improving the economy.

Assisted suicide is an answer to a different problem and it is disturbing to hear it bandied around so casually.

[SardonicALLY]

There is only one answer to this problem, The Soylent Corporation. People problems require people solutions ... =P

[nathanhass]

Here's food for thought on the morality of populating control. a couple things not mentioned are that with a reduced population there are more resources per capita to go around, resulting in more economic prosperity for the future population. Another point would be a healthier population, genetic disease could be nearly eradicated using wise application of limits of who has children rather than only a focus of how many children. We can advance our species to a future with a healthy, economicly prosperous, and sustainable population living in harmony with the natural world. Actually, to me, it seems unethical to future generations to not take such action.

[DMgHalt]

I really like the idea of tax breaks for those without kids. Since they have the least impact on society and consume the least amount of resources, it makes no sense for them to have to pay higher taxes than those people who consume more in general. Maybe reward individuals a certain amount of money on a yearly basis as long as they don't reproduce. And once they choose to have kids, their reward goes away.

Also, a fat tax should be looked into. The entire reason that population control is becoming an issue is because we have a limited amount of resources on the planet. The end goal here is to delay the using up of earths resources, or at least significantly reduce the rate of consumption of those resources to a sustainable level.

We should also invest heavily into space exploration and the terraforming of other planets. And then begin shipping people off this planet in large quantities. In addition we need to begin the process of drawing up blueprints and drafting engineers for the development of something similar to the death star.

[ranondo]

if you want to slow down the population growth wait until you're 30 or later before you have children

[zcorpalpha]

Yet, years later you have had kids David

Hypocrite 😂

[NoWay]

Something that we could do that would have implications without much controversy is to change how we give tax deductions to parents. The average number of children, I believe, the last time I looked, is 2.2. We give a tax deduction for every child someone has. If we just front loaded this, and gave the same deduction for the first child that we give for two, and then gave no further deductions, we would reduce births. Combine this with a good family planning strategy, socialized birth control, sex education, easy access to early term abortion when this doesn't work, and you would get a reduction in population growth.

We really need to deal with the idea that our pollution problem, our child hunger problem, our global warming problem, is almost entirely an overpopulation problem. We have seven billion people in the world. It's predicted that we will top out at eleven billion though I think that's based on some false assumptions. I would argue that if we were at three or four billion that we could feed, educate, and provide a good quality of life for everyone. Three or four billion people on earth, I would argue, gets you a Star Trek future. At ten or eleven billion or more, I'm afraid that you get a Mad Max future. The population would crash, of course, after the wheels fell off civilization, but I think we get a nightmare without reducing population growth.

[Seekarr]

Eugenics is not anything new. We already have an example of a governing system that is built on similar policies to those suggested in this video: National Socialism.

Accepting eugenic as a policy in a nation with a political climate like the US would make it a more dangerous ingredient than it was in the Weimar Republic.

[Daisysunshyne]

I think population control by killing is a little extreme as of now. Before eliminating the population, we must limit our resource consumption first. For example, showers should start being timed no less than 15 minutes, new technology that gains energy from the sun only, and a limited monthly electricity supply.

[YoungMasta]

I respectfully disagree with your two options.... I thank that we should focus on planetary exspanchin so we can grow our race rather then dwell on current Tec when the unvirce is our play ground.... David PACKMAN I have a written language disability and I am taking this time to tell you this bc I know I cannot spell however I truly believe space is soldly the futcher... love your show david...

[gandalfthewhite]

what ever this guy is on keep it away from me I think kids are a great thing

[red_ashcroft]

education and tax exemption for the first ten years after legal age. for people who doesn't have a child. No tax breaks for anyone who has a child. When children reaches legal age the fewer the children the lower the tax goes.

[dvolada]

Mexicans can pack two families per house !! Your welcome America !!

[Marchant]

I'm so glad I decided not to have children. Best decision I ever made. It doesn't seem as if the future holds anything promising. We're running low on resources, over fishing and running out of rain forest. Then there's the mountains of pollution and garbage we're creating. I can't imagine things will get better for us at the rate we're going.

[freezingfire]

2-3 births per female, after that is a mandatory tube tying/vasectomy

[Ravinian]

If you want to decrease population, first I would encourage and support the spread of feminism. Feminism has several population control tools built into it, with the bureaucracy to back those tools up also built in also. Feminism strongly encourages young women to be more then "just" a mother, fights to ensure easy access to birth control for women, fights to ensure easy access to abortion for women and strives to put real world tools in reach of women so secondary education and good jobs are viable options. Second ensure that all young people have access to effective sex education, access to birth control easily, and remove any stigma associated with the use of birth control or abortion. Third, I believe just those two would put a huge dent in childbirth, but if that was not enough, develop long term birth control for men, women or both and demand it's use from early teens till around the age of 25.

I believe the birth rate would plummet in any nation (or world) where those 3 steps were aggressively implemented.