Early Retirement Extreme Forums

Came up with a better plan. How about a law that only allows the most virile males to have sex with women over 50?

@C40

Vasalgel is still not on the market. I'm on the waiting list so I'll update when new information comes out.

Currently planned for either clinical trials or market release in 2018.

Felipe wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 22, 2017 12:42 pm

@C40

Vasalgel is still not on the market. I'm on the waiting list so I'll update when new information comes out.

Currently planned for either clinical trials or market release in 2018.

Oh cool, thanks. I still haven't gotten the 'snip snap' vasectomy. So maybe I should just wait for this 'clog the pipe' method.

Here's an article to the 2 main methods of reversibility sterility:
Vasalgel, the form coming to market soon hopefully.
https://www.parsemus.org/projects/vasal ... lgel-faqs/
RISUG, the Indian form I believe you mentioned that is also currently undergoing trials.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4345756/

Maybe we stop giving money to people that can't aford childs.

Jean wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:08 pm

Maybe we stop giving money to people that can't aford childs.

Education and decent health care are more effective.

ducknalddon wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:15 pm

Jean wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:08 pm

Maybe we stop giving money to people that can't aford childs.

Education and decent health care are more effective.

Neither are effective.

@Jean
Are you referring to the Tax Credit?
I hadn't thought about the fact that it acts as an incentive until this point.

I don't know how it is in the US, but in most european countries, If you have child and can't feed them, social services will hand you some money to avoid you to starve.
And when we send food to a place were they suffer from starvation, this is what we do as well.
If unhability to take the future into account is only slighty hereditary, it only makes the future worse.
Mamals that make children and can't feed them usually see their kids die, this is how it has been for millions of years, and we shouldn't try to change this because they happen to be human, because otherwise they'll just multiply and starve a few generation latter, when we can't feed them anymore because they are 10 times more numerous starving. This is how we could minimize suffering in the long run.

I would ask the author of the article about the law of unintended consequences. Have they thought of any and what are they in their opinion. If everyone started having less children, what would happen to schools, teachers, jobs, children's marketing, the economy etc. More unemployment and more time for the unemployed to have more children?

Also, people are living longer, and consuming more and more resources.

Also, why is there not more discussion on how to cool the earth instead of more discussion on not making the earth warmer because of global warming. How can we make the earth cooler if it is such a problem? Like adding matter in the atmosphere to deflect the sun's rays, or adding more clouds for the same reason.. stuff like that perhaps. It's rarely talked about.

Also, it's a drop in the bucket approach. It's like if you want to support democracy, vote. One more vote or one less vote and one more child or one less child will not change anything on the scale of something like climate change. The article could say "Want to fight climate change? Interrupt people's lives so they can't have children. Convince the wealthy to make more propoganda to scare people into not having children. Make laws like the one child policy in China (which had it's own unintended consequences). But of course we can't do that because we love freedom. So it can only be done on a personal level only.

So with all these complexities: need for freedom, fear of hurting other people's feelings and offending people, fear of offering other practical solutions but going over the "line" and offending others so you have to keep things like that to yourself etc. fear of politicians doing something to actually save the earth but they won't get re-elected next time so they won't do anything etc.. we just continue with the status quo.

Also, we need growth and inflation to keep the status quo. If the author is concerned about climate change, it should be of major economic changes (which could produce more and more unintended consequences) instead of children being born which is a biological urge.

stand@desk wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 23, 2017 4:27 pm

I would ask the author of the article about the law of unintended consequences. Have they thought of any and what are they in their opinion. If everyone started having less children, what would happen to schools, teachers, jobs, children's marketing, the economy etc. More unemployment and more time for the unemployed to have more children?

Also, people are living longer, and consuming more and more resources.

Naturally in the short term there would be significant disruption to economies. But eventually it would settle down to a smaller version of what we have now. It must be possible to live in a world with a smaller population. Even a 50% reduction in population would only get us back to around 1970, and the world functioned then.

OTCW wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:58 pm

ducknalddon wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:15 pm

Jean wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:08 pm

Maybe we stop giving money to people that can't aford childs.

Education and decent health care are more effective.

Neither are effective.

So why do you think birth rates decline in step with falling child mortality and improved education?

Let me rephrase or expound I guess. In the western world as child mortality has rapidly fallen, birth rates have gone down. You no longer need 10 children to ensure that at least one makes it to carry on genetics is the argument.

I think it has more to do with not needing 10 kids to work the family farm combined with nobody can afford 10 kids anymore combined with nobody can/wants to dedicate the kind of time it takes to raise 10 kids in the western world nowadays.

Regardless, th bigger point is it won't work in the developing world because you can't make any of that happen fast enough. The base population is already too high. Western world tackled child mortality/education/healthcare/birth control when its base was relatively small. The developing world is already booming and the time isn't there to make a difference with any of that IMO.

It would be like fighting a house fire with a water gun. The rapid growth of the problem needs to be addressed really early for that kind of solution to be effective. Western world got lucky IMO.

Not sure where you are getting your data or information -- it sounds completely inaccurate and based on books like "The Population Bomb" from 1970 that turned out to be just plain wrong. In fact, this is already working in the developing world for the past few decades. Almost wherever there has been a focus on the education and emancipation of women, birth rates have fallen. Amusingly, the only place they have risen recently is in Europe, which is still well below replacement rate and will be depopulating in the next few decades.

"In recent years, fertility has declined in virtually all major areas of the world. In Africa, where
fertility levels are the highest of any major area, total fertility has fallen from 4.9 children per
woman in 2005-2010 to 4.7 children per woman in 2010-2015. Fertility levels have also fallen in
Asia and Oceania over the same period, from 2.3 to 2.2 children per woman in Asia and from
2.5 to 2.4 children per woman in Oceania. Recent fertility declines have been slightly larger in
Latin America and the Caribbean where fertility has fallen from 2.3 to 2.15 and in Northern
America where fertility has fallen from 2.0 in 2005-2010 to 1.86 in 2010-2015. Europe is the
only major area that was an exception to this trend. In recent years, total fertility in Europe has
increased slightly from 1.55 children per woman in 2005-2010 to 1.6 children per woman in
2010-2015."

This is from https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Publication ... P_2015.pdf

This is how it works and why fertility rates are declining due to education and other factors mostly related to women: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E

@Dragline: I agree with your information, but what I have wondered is whether or not it is just a sort of lull, rather than an equilibrium?

I agree with Dragline.

This documentary(1) addresses the decrease in babies per women as life conditions improve.

Children per woman in India is 2.45 (2) this is the 2.5 kids of America back in the day and it will continue to decrease unless some large percentage of the population dies off.

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UbmG8gtBPM
(2) https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... /2127.html

7Wannabe5 wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:21 pm

@Dragline: I agree with your information, but what I have wondered is whether or not it is just a sort of lull, rather than an equilibrium?

Well, I also read an article today that sperm counts are dropping in the developed world and nobody really knows why : http://www.bbc.com/news/health-40719743

No significant decline in South America, Asia and Africa, though.

It will go towards an S curve eventually, but nor because of education or healthcare, but just because resources won't support more growth. I'm guessing it will be an ugly affair. Especially in areas where population has not stabilized. My opinion only.

@Dragline:

''Boxers at one time were the man's under-bottom of choice, and that has been overtaken by the briefs,'' said Lester Schwartz, vice president of advertising for Fruit of the Loom."

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/199 ... -underwear

Also contributing to sperm count decline would be almost every other change in fashion away from the 1950s Cary Grant elegant, junk loosely encased in crisp natural fabrics ideal.

I agree about eventual S-Curve reveal*, because when you ask "How does education of females lead to human population decline.", you also have to ask "How does human population decline contribute to education of females?" and consider common underlying causation.

*may be forestalled by bio-genetic-engineering of humans with gills.

@7W5--Combine that with the ever-increasing time spent in the car for longer commutes and those poor suckers are getting cooked before they ever see the light of day.