This is one of those times when I wish I could think better. I suppose the first order of business is to understand the problem. What in god's name is overpopulation? The simplest answer seems to be that there's now more people on earth than the earth can support or, more accurately, the global population is fast approaching the carrying capacity of our planet. The reason why that should worry us is that the consequences are severe - famines, wars, and disease, and I haven't even started on global ecological environment.

So, we have a major issue on our hands - the earth won't be able to sustain humanity if it continues to grow in numbers at the rate it is. We need to act ASAP if we're to postpone, preferably cancel, our appointment with tragedy on such a scale that all the trials humans have endured up until now will be seem childishly trivial.

There's no reason to doubt that we've all come to the same conclusion - the alarming rate at which the size of the human population is growing begs our immediate attention and demands urgent action. At this point I feel a sense of satisfaction but then I quickly realize though I know we have to do something quickly, I know not what exactly what that something is.

Do we take the soft approach, initiate a global awareness campaign on overpopulation and hope that people will make the right choices whatever that may look like or do we take a hardline approach that may involve anything from policies styled along China's one-child rule to mass sterilization? I guess it would depend on how immediate our perception of the dangers of overpopulation is.

Perhaps, as some might believe, there's no need for any imtervention at all. Nature might offer its own solution to the specter of overpopulation by, for instance, reducing fertility rates in future generations or by inducing a natural form of infertility. Of the former I have no hard data but of the latter, I refer the reader to the thoroughly studied phenomenon of lactational amenorrhea. Google for details.

Last but not the least, technology, the crown jewel of humanity, might be able to offer a way out of this quagmire e.g. terraforming Mars can ease the burden that, as of now, is planet earth's.

may look like or do we take a hardline approach that may involve anything from policies styled along China's one-child rule to mass sterilization? I guess it would depend on how immediate our perception of the dangers of overpopulation is. — TheMadFool

I would sound like an antinatalist but I am agree with this policy. I think most of the Western governments do not put this issue in debate because it is a taboo topic. You know it comes from China, a communist country, "our enemy", etc... So our governments prefer still spreading the idea of "we are free in this part of the world. We are not restrictive as China".
Nevertheless, it is a big issue. Not because a social/economic problem but ethical one. I respect all projects the people might have in their minds but I think if you are irresponsible and cannot take care of your own life, please do not have children, it is simple. I think this is not dictator or totalitarian because we are (at least) guaranteeing two important scenarios:
1. Those kids that would born in broken families would end up being criminals or distorted (real life is not a fairy book most of these kids with bad parents tend to be a "non inclusive" citizens. This is the hard reality)
2. We literally reduce the problem of overpopulation. Because it is a damn issue. We all already accepted that everybody who borns shall have all rights possible. It is true. But I think the problem here is in the "roots". I mean, trying to prevent it previously someone is pregnant not when the kid is already conceived.

I bet a good solution could be a better sex educational system or changing the minds of those countries which necessarily need kids because their economy is so primary...

Last but not the least, technology, the crown jewel of humanity, might be able to offer a way out of this quagmire e.g. terraforming Mars can ease the burden that, as of now, is planet earth's. — TheMadFool

This could be an excellent solution but sadly we are not ready yet due to the lack of investment :sad:

I dont think preventing people from being born is a good idea you might as well create a situation where stubborn people will try to kill themself off by choosing to participate in something dangerous.

The solution to overpopulation is overpopulation: it is a catastropically self-correcting problem in the medium-to-long run (re: anthropocenic environmental collapse :eyes:).

A new life awaits you in the Off-world colonies. The chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure. — L.A. (2019), advertisement

That sounds painful and would take a long time.

I wish I could have your hope in humanity as well.

is that sarcasm?

"Long time" compared to what? Population growth and resource depletion (e.g. drinkable water, arable topsoil, old-growth rainforests, etc) are not linear processes: they're accelerating. Our epoch aka "the Anthropocene", it's been forecast, is the sixth great extinction event. That future is already here, and 'the now' (opportunity) already past (missed). The machines shall inherit the dirt.

you might as well create a situation where stubborn people will try to kill themself off by choosing to participate in something dangerous — Huh

It's called war, but nuclear ruined it.

civilizations don't collapse overnight its a silent killer,
change and improvement takes just as long.
There are ways to speed it up

it's not war it's more subtle than that.
Nature remembers it's debts.

s not war it's more subtle than that. — Huh

Bungee jumping with weak bungees?

Nope. Look around us and even worse, the rulers of the world. Impossible having hope in this context.

yup

Nature doesn't need hope, while world leaders are just lucky

Probably but somehow we need laws or rules in this nature because the opposite is live in chaos
You cannot have the hope of leaving your bike (for example) in the park and not being stolen. It is impossible by nature

What solutions to this problem do you think would be the most effective, even if they might not be morally ‘good’? — Schrödinger's cat

Leave it to nature.

Good and evil have no control on empathy,
Whether someone steals your bike relys more on empathy
So does chaos
Laws deal with what's moral not whats empathic

We've already collapsed, friend; like a beheaded corpse, 'global civilization' is only still twitching ... Read e.g. Jared Diamond, Bill McGribbin, Alan Weisman, et al.

I feel there is still hope for something better

:yikes:

There is an infinite amount of hope in the universe ... but not for us. — K

Laws have to deal with order. Moral is so abstract and depends a lot of the countries and their laws. We have to put principles to create a society the most social welfare possible.

laws are just a pale imitation of empathy

I feel there is still hope for something better — Huh

Sure. Primates originally evolved in the PETM. There's no reason to think we won't rock and roll through the next 10,000 years.

And we aren't in a mass extinction event. Here.

Not necessarily. Check out private law or agreement regulation. These are laws of interests not empathy
Also look at dictatorships and their laws... Have they empathy?

Interest begins with understanding
Just because your empathetic doesn't mean you'll show mercy.

Just because your empathetic doesn't mean you'll show mercy. — Huh

This is why we need courts and law to at least reinforce it or preserve it

Why?

Because we need always an authority to reinforce those principles. We, the humans in a structured jungle, need organisms to embraced what we are debating about. If we remove these, we automatically enter into chaos because human is by nature so selfish and tend to hurt others

Re: overpopulation

Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. — Agent Smith to Morpheus (1999)