• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

By 2050 Human Reproduction Should Outpace Food Consumption. Are Insects a Solution?

Status
Not open for further replies.
CrazyDude said:
Sadly, this going to effect the third world more than the first world.
Click to expand...

It's developing countries that are also the reason human reproduction is through the roof. Some of the poorest nations on earth have the highest birthrates.

Rather than think of alternative food sources such as insects, maybe people can work with developing countries to control populations, educate them about parenthood and birth control, so as to not get so large and impoverished that the only way they can sustain themselves is through humanitarian aid. I believe certain countries in Africa and South and East Asia have the highest birthrates in the world right now.
 
Madness said:
These kinds of posts irritate the hell out of me. You're also a part of "GAF". So when you say not surprising as if everyone here is part of some universal collective you disdain, you're also talking about yourself.
Click to expand...

this is true

"Not surprising for the posters I often see espousing similar sentiments on Gaf"

ok
 
Labor said:
this is true

"Not surprising for the posters I often see espousing similar sentiments on Gaf"

ok
Click to expand...

Oh I didn't mean to come off like that. Maybe I'm just tired, and I apologize. It's just I'm seeing so many posts now all the time, GAF is this, wow GAF is that, I'm not surprised these (GAF) are like this. And it's just, this is a forum with a WIDE range of viewpoints. You're bound to get a ton of people with extreme things. There are people who actively promote North Korea, Incest, even things considered pedophilia at times here. But there is also a lot of good viewpoints, and generally it's a solid forum for discussion at times.
 
Honestly I see this being a bigger issue for third world countries. IIRC I once read that birth rates in first world countries are decreasing amongst the middle and upper class. Not sure if that's true though.
 
Madness said:
Oh I didn't mean to come off like that. Maybe I'm just tired, and I apologize. It's just I'm seeing so many posts now all the time, GAF is this, wow GAF is that, I'm not surprised these (GAF) are like this. And it's just, this is a forum with a WIDE range of viewpoints. You're bound to get a ton of people with extreme things. There are people who actively promote North Korea, Incest, even things considered pedophilia at times here. But there is also a lot of good viewpoints, and generally it's a solid forum for discussion at times.
Click to expand...

Nah, you had a vaild point.
 
antonz said:
Most studies already conclude that growth population wise is on the decline an after we reach that scary 10 billion mark it will have likely have slowed to the point of population decline.
Click to expand...
This needs to be quoted.

As long as we don't stop the urbanization trend, we'll slow down the population growth significantly.
 
Neo C. said:
This needs to be quoted.

As long as we don't stop the urbanization trend, we'll slow down the population growth significantly.
Click to expand...

Yep.

What's truly interesting though is how we will start to fight declining birthrates. The Romans had this same problem 2000 years ago and failed to stall declining birthrates through both policy and force, and in the end their entire aristocratic line pretty much entirely died out because of it. Obviously the two can't really be compared 1:1, but I still think it'll be interesting to see how we combat it.
 
Nils said:
When people talk about Malthus, they're referring to a period in time in which there were about 1 billion humans walking around, not long before that we ranked in the millions.

Has tech and innovation also increased exponentially, yes. Is it guaranteed that this will keep scaling without ever reaching a tipping point? Maybe, but thinking this is guaranteed is magical thinking about invisible handjobs. If we're going to label things, the people on this side of the spectrum are called cornucopians:
Click to expand...

The dumbest thing about everyone making the Malthusian argument is that the say something will come along to solve the problem. Well what do they think suggestions like vertical farms, cloning or even insects are?

They are proposed solutions that need to be refined into something workable.
 
By 2050, I expect they'll figure out a way to press bug meat into faux-filet mignon, faux-prime rib, faux-carnitas, etc. So really, there's nothing to worry about.
 
The solution is simple.. how about we as a race stop breading like freaking rats.
I often hear politicians say "ooh population growth is a good thing"(i am guessing they are talking short term economics, but ofc. they never specify this) .

The only way the earth will survive the human race, is if we become fewer and cleaner.
People who get 3+ children are usually proud for some weird reason, when in actuality they have done far more harm to the earth, then they would by driving a gas-guzzler 100 miles every day.

if we reduced the population in the future it would be a good thing because of the increased automatization, high living standards(for some), and that we are not even close to going extinct.
Everyone would benefit even the poor countries as there would be more resources available to everyone.
 
The Technomancer said:
That sounds like one of the most genuinely tyrannical things I've ever heard
Click to expand...

Correct though.

Tough problems require tough solutions.

Species survival should override individual rights.

Nevermind food issues, the potential carbon footprint of every new child born almost completely negates all environmental initiatives to tackle global warming and pollution.

The problem with this place is humans, too many of them, we have no equilibrium with our habitat.

Anal sex is eco-friendly: http://youtu.be/PVpBUs5ucn0
 
In 2050 we'll simply China the people
LOTUTLC.jpg
 
zychi said:
No, governments should figure out a way to implement birth control into water or something. Then, when you want to have a child, you have to fill out forms as if you were adopting an animal. If you aren't fit to have a kid, you aren't allowed to.

It boggles my mind that kids who are 16/17/18 with no jobs, and can barely take care of themselves are able to have children, but can't legally adopt a puppy
Click to expand...

I'd like this to happen but it never will.
 
Science and technology have stopped progressing in this future world too?

Procreation is a basic human freedom. And government does step in if you are an unfit parent. Same with the dog.
 
pa22word said:
Yep.

What's truly interesting though is how we will start to fight declining birthrates. The Romans had this same problem 2000 years ago and failed to stall declining birthrates through both policy and force, and in the end their entire aristocratic line pretty much entirely died out because of it. Obviously the two can't really be compared 1:1, but I still think it'll be interesting to see how we combat it.
Click to expand...
It's easy to deal with it in theory, it's difficult because of politics. Short term solution is immigration, long term it's family friendly politics. The right wing of every country does a tremendous job in killing any effort in changing our current direction though.

LeleSocho said:
In 2050 we'll simply China the people
LOTUTLC.jpg
Click to expand...
It's worth noting that China doesn't need this policy anymore, but is still keeping it, because there way too many people in the system who profit from the one-child-policy.
It's pretty stupid.
 
Jburton said:
Tough problems require tough solutions.

Species survival should override individual rights.
Click to expand...

You can replace the two words of "species survival" with other ideologically appropriate excuses, and those sentiments match up perfectly with the worst humanity has ever had to offer over the past century (and before).

National Socialism "Racial survival should override individual rights".

Marxism "Class struggle survival should override individual rights".

ISIS "Islamic survival should override individual rights".

And on, and on, and on, back thousands of years.

People demanding absolute power for themselves and their ideology is nothing new. Nor their eagerness to dominate and dismiss individual rights in order to accomplish those goals, which, we are told, are always for the greater good.

Thankfully now a days, in most parts of the world at least, people that would happily brush aside the human rights of their fellow citizens (for their own good, naturally), are a fringe minority, and institutional checks are in place to ensure they never come anywhere near actual power.
 
Nature itself shows us that uncontrolled reproduction ALWAYS leads to chaos and extinction, often by famine, often by social disruption.

People in 1st world countries forget that almost all the food they consume are made in those hunger 3rd world countries.

When the famine become severe, poor people will start raiding en masse the food sources and the 1st world (especially in the long harsh winter) will not receive their food part.

When that happens, population control will happen in a form that will pale any tyrannical methods in the past.

Im not impeding anyone to have children. Im just saying that 50% (or more) of couples that have sex and end up having children (or choose abortion in little cases, because in 3rd world countries, where abortion is still saw as an *evil* act lol) and raise it abnormally, disrupting the couple financially, emotionally, sometimes the father leaves the mother, making it even worse. In the end society "pays" for that wrong raised person in a miriad of ways. Its not that difficult to see the impact a individual can have in the local society and sometimes in the whole.

I wish that water tap become sterilizing for both sex, and if the couple (marrying WOULD not be a requirement, just a stable long term relationship) want to have children, they will have to register the child FIRST and then start to receive treatment to counter the sterilization. I would be a much more controlled step for the couple and society would reap the rewards in a generation or two.

The Gov would know exactly how much children will be born and revert the investments needed to properly educated and care for those babies.

I know this can be manipulated by every type of evil manner conceivable, but the actual have children anytime anywhere and dont mind the fact is overcrowding the earth.

WE simply dont the the logistics, the infrastrucute nor the government correct to support so many ppl.

Pardon my awful english and my Nazy tendencies :p
 
evilromero said:
Not having multiple babies is the solution (or not having kids at all). Maybe encourage more adopting? Anyways, just eating more of the worlds animals is a shitty solution. "Oh hell, there's more of us. What do we do?" "Let's just expand the menu to include stuff we're not already eating!" Fucking brilliant. I guess population control just isn't a consideration at this point because, what. The earth is still pretty fucking big? So why stop now?
Click to expand...

Population control is extremely politically incorrect to mention. Furthermore, comparisons to China would be made and would make the person look even worse. Career suicide to mention this, even if it may be true.
 
zychi said:
Have sex all you want, just stop producing kids that you can't afford. A 16 year old can't have a beer, can't join the military, but they can have kids

Makes sense.
Click to expand...

Even if an unpopular opinion, I agree to some extent. Birth control is super important since we're not going to just stop having sex anytime soon to fix the problem.

To be clear: Not contracts to have kids, but better birth control and rather better availability birth control would be damn great.
 
It will level off, no need for insects.

Look at developed countries...basically no growth, some negative. Once developing gain education and broader birth control, same there.

Finally laws of supply and demand - cost to raise children just for the amount of food they eat would curb procreation without any tyranny.
 
Population control is pretty simple.

Monetarily incentivize less kids. Tax breaks and the like. Baby food and diapers in particular will be disproportionately taxed. Romanticize the single urban lifestyle. Reward exterminators and snitches on multi-child bearers with cash prizes for confirmed kills and verified leaks.

Send disabled babies and orphans to the genetic factories where they can be researched en masse. See how they react to diseases, run clinical trials on experimental drugs, e.t.c. Also, the gingers can be separated from the rest of the pack and used as target practice for live military exercises.
 
DouglasteR said:
Yes, but it produce all the food it need ? And the other smaller colder countries ?
Click to expand...

83% of the food consumed in the US is grown in the US.

Also is the ugly stat that 50% of the food grown in the US goes to waste.

So yes, with better methods of distribution and preservation, the US could be entirely self feeding, with food to spare. Currently, we export roughly $120,000,000 USD worth of food every year (approximately 10% of total US exports).

Again, the issue isn't currently so much production as it is distribution. Even in the US, 1 in 5 kids goes hungry every night. While half our produced food goes to waste.
 
Trojita said:
Soylent Green
Click to expand...

I came here to post this. I really think it could be the solution for countries facing famine. You don't need to eat, you need nutrition. I'm sure starving people won't mind the fact that they're not getting filet mignon if they get all their nutritional needs met.

I really think 100 years from now, eating will be a luxury and I don't really have that much of a problem with it. Obesity would be pretty much solved too, which is a huge bonus.
 
The Technomancer said:
Or we could fucking work to lift the rest of the world out of poverty which has the wonderful side effect of lowering birth rates!
Click to expand...

QFT. So many posters basically saying "let's sterilize the poor!", goddamn.

Raise the living standards and bam, people stop breeding like rabbits. Nearly every developed country is moving into stagnant/declining birthrates.
 
industrian said:
Fucking around with population growth by legislating draconian birth control measures or imposing family limits is the most destructive thing you can do. It opens a can of worms so big you can see it from space. This is true about any heavy human intervention into the natural order of things.

Prosperity is the best form of birth control. It's natural. Animals (especially prey) have large families as it increases the odds of at least one of them surviving. Humans, sadly, still have this instinct in developing regions, combined with the instinct of having large families so that you'll have more kids to look after you when you're old. Once people are prosperous, you remove these two factors completely as you can afford adequate healthcare and people will save for their old age.

Prosperous people may even forgo having kids altogether, especially when you consider that it costs at least US$210,000 to raise a child from birth to 17 years old. For example: Birth rates in East Asian countries are extremely low. A lot of people simply point towards it being due to more women being educated, active members of the workforce, and not content with just being simple housewives. But it's also due to the fact that apartments are too small and too expensive combined with the fact that entry-to-mid-level salaries are ridiculously low and that the growth of these salaries has stagnated due to economic crises. Try scraping together that US$210,000 in Taiwan when both you and your partner combined make less than US$40,000 a year.
Click to expand...

Except it costs considerably less than 210k to raise a child in Taiwan.
 
markot said:
Science and technology have stopped progressing in this future world too?

Procreation is a basic human freedom. And government does step in if you are an unfit parent. Same with the dog.
Click to expand...
Does the government really step in in America?! I could probably say that 25% of parents in the United States are unfit or very borderline, right?
 
onken said:
Except it costs considerably less than 210k to raise a child in Taiwan.
Click to expand...

You would think that before factoring in property values and education costs. Unless you want to live in Taidong, Pingtung or another area far away from the larger cities, you're still looking at a sizeable investment per child. An investment that a lot of people would rather spend on vacations and other things for themselves.
 
antonz said:
I don't know why people always parrot the contraception line. 3rd World population booms the way it does because mortality rate is atrocious and they need to pump out 15 kids so they may get lucky an have 3-4 of them survive past 10 to help out around the farm etc.

Most studies already conclude that growth population wise is on the decline an after we reach that scary 10 billion mark it will have likely have slowed to the point of population decline.

Food production wise we do not have a problem. We have a Humanity problem. Lets take a great example.

Ukraine. Has what is considered some of the absolute best soil in the world for growing crops etc. Its been stated they could become one of the richest countries in the world if they would actually utilize their natural capabilities. Russia and Corruption have instead led to the Ukraine to only tap the surface of their potential. What a shock too that Russia right now is trying to steal all of that land from Ukraine.
Click to expand...


Actually, the latest UN population projections now say that the Earth's population will reach 9.6 to 12.3 billion by 2100, and continue to grow into the next century.

industrian said:
Fucking around with population growth by legislating draconian birth control measures or imposing family limits is the most destructive thing you can do. It opens a can of worms so big you can see it from space. This is true about any heavy human intervention into the natural order of things.

Prosperity is the best form of birth control. It's natural. Animals (especially prey) have large families as it increases the odds of at least one of them surviving. Humans, sadly, still have this instinct in developing regions, combined with the instinct of having large families so that you'll have more kids to look after you when you're old. Once people are prosperous, you remove these two factors completely as you can afford adequate healthcare and people will save for their old age.

Prosperous people may even forgo having kids altogether, especially when you consider that it costs at least US$210,000 to raise a child from birth to 17 years old. For example: Birth rates in East Asian countries are extremely low. A lot of people simply point towards it being due to more women being educated, active members of the workforce, and not content with just being simple housewives. But it's also due to the fact that apartments are too small and too expensive combined with the fact that entry-to-mid-level salaries are ridiculously low and that the growth of these salaries has stagnated due to economic crises. Try scraping together that US$210,000 in Taiwan when both you and your partner combined make less than US$40,000 a year.
Click to expand...

That may be true, but prosperity will put an even bigger toll on the environment. The only reason people in the developed world can live such good lives is because the other 80% of the world is incredibly poor. You may be able to grow synthetic meat in vertical farms, but platinum still needs to be strip-mined from the countryside.
 
So I have a question for people who are pro-eugenics and want to use wealth as the criteria.

How do you deal with the fact that discrimination is well and alive and makes it extremely hard for some minority groups to find high paying jobs? The side effect of using wealth as a criteria in today's society is that it has the side effect (or possibly intended?) effect of exacerbating racism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Are Plato and Aristotle the most influential humans that have ever lived?
2
83
1K
Baemono replied
We need a horror movie where peeps start attacking humans.
23
386
Woggleman replied
GAF should really implement an AI assistant
23
513
Malak replied
  • Poll
What’s your favorite fast food chain?
2
72
2K
Mithos replied
Should I get Android tablet vs iPad?
14
961
Meicyn replied
Top Bottom