The following link is to a study about the control of rodents in Australia carried out some years ago and suggests the use of species specific Immunocontraception (since all others methods had failed). As far as I remember, there was an outcry from some people when it was suggested that something similar could be developed for human population control, like, er, 'putting something in the water'. I'm not sure, but I believe the research was put 'on hold' for this reason. (This was in the '90s when the world population was estimated at about 5.5 billion here.
Fertility Control Using Immunocontraception

But according to more recent research links:
MTA Sets New Tactic In Rat War
Chemical fertility control of rice-field rats
the development of immunocontraceptive methods is proceeding apace.

How long will it be before someone mentions the unmentionable and connects this research with a suitable delivery system (like 'putting something in the water') and apply it carte blanche to the Human Race?
After all, we've tried whacking (and indeed poisoning) each other - not specifically as a method of population control - and that doesn't seem to work (it only results in subsequent population explosions).
One could argue that there are contraceptive methods available but these are subject to human fallibility (including religion) and anyway, they are not universally available.

It's unlikely that the human population will continue to rise exponentially forever. I've read studies that suggest it will level out at around 10 billion by the middle of this century then begin to decline. To understand this you only have to look at nation specific fertility rates. Many (or is it most?) developed nations rates are actually decreasing. As the developing world "develops" and becomes more urbanised, more educated and less religious I think we may see similar statistics there.

MacIver wrote:It's unlikely that the human population will continue to rise exponentially forever. I've read studies that suggest it will level out at around 10 billion by the middle of this century then begin to decline. To understand this you only have to look at nation specific fertility rates. Many (or is it most?) developed nations rates are actually decreasing. As the developing world "develops" and becomes more urbanised, more educated and less religious I think we may see similar statistics there.

That human population will not continue to rise forever is probability bordering with certainty, from the nature of things - http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comics_en ... ew-island/

Even if population growth predictions are accurate, say for 100 years from now, there is no certainty, due to unpredictable variables like technological progress or average consumption, that we are not past the point of no return (peak oil etc) already. In this sense, putting something into water seems a bit radical.

It seems to me, only the educated are drinking "the water".

Perhaps a better method of delivery, would be to put the stuff in alcohol?

james1v wrote:Perhaps a better method of delivery, would be to put the stuff in alcohol?

Now, there's an interesting thought...

The ideal, as I have often said, is to apply reversible contraception to all, such than only UNWANTED conception is prevented.

I think most people would be surprised to learn the percentage of humanity that is the result of accidental pregnancies, especially as the unwanted children are likely to be the least cared for, most irresponsible, and have the highest unwanted pregnancy rate in turn.

At one stage, when I was in my 20's , every one of my peers who had children admitted they were unplanned, more often than not the result of antibiotics negating the pill (or so they claimed).

Of course this is anecdotal, I do not have data to support my suspicions regarding the general population, but the data supporting a direct link between abortion laws and the crime rate is very interesting.

MacIver wrote:It's unlikely that the human population will continue to rise exponentially forever.

Unlikely, no, impossible.

This shows why

Alan B wrote:

james1v wrote:Perhaps a better method of delivery, would be to put the stuff in alcohol?

Now, there's an interesting thought...

Yeah, but only put it in the brands that the poor drink of course.


The way to reduce the human population is to increase the mean standard of living. You can find a plethora of data on this at gapminder.com.

THWOTH wrote:

Alan B wrote:

james1v wrote:Perhaps a better method of delivery, would be to put the stuff in alcohol?

Now, there's an interesting thought...

Yeah, but only put it in the brands that the poor drink of course.


The way to reduce the human population is to increase the mean standard of living. You can find a plethora of data on this at gapminder.com.

Yup, Gapminder is the Daddy!

Also; education, education, education! Educating woman + better access to basic healthcare = reduced birth rates.

Sorted.


Next!

THWOTH wrote:Sorted.


Next!

They should put us in charge or something.

I would be quite happy to see all male and females sterilised at birth and have to pass a series of childcare based courses to have it reversed. Prove you know how to look after a child before you can have one /halftongueincheekmode

mattthomas wrote:I would be quite happy to see all male and females sterilised at birth and have to pass a series of childcare based courses to have it reversed. Prove you know how to look after a child before you can have one /halftongueincheekmode

Ah, but what authority would endorse an individual's credentials and grant them a right to reproduce, and on what basis could such a judgement take place?

Fuck mate... The first post was barely thought out and mostly said in jest, you can't ask follow up questions. Fucking bad form!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

campermon wrote:

THWOTH wrote:

Alan B wrote:

james1v wrote:Perhaps a better method of delivery, would be to put the stuff in alcohol?

Now, there's an interesting thought...

Yeah, but only put it in the brands that the poor drink of course.


The way to reduce the human population is to increase the mean standard of living. You can find a plethora of data on this at gapminder.com.

Yup, Gapminder is the Daddy!

Also; education, education, education! Educating woman + better access to basic healthcare = reduced birth rates.

Damn educated women! Almost impossible to get lucky with them.

Of course they should be sterilized. Of course by "them" I mean those who are not exactly like me.

Nobody is exactly like you lak. In fact, nobody is even close to even being a little bit like you. You're just so very ...erm.... special.

THWOTH wrote:

mattthomas wrote:I would be quite happy to see all male and females sterilised at birth and have to pass a series of childcare based courses to have it reversed. Prove you know how to look after a child before you can have one /halftongueincheekmode

Ah, but what authority would endorse an individual's credentials and grant them a right to reproduce, and on what basis could such a judgement take place?

Many births are 'by accident' that is, not planned. There would be no need to get authorisation to exercise a right to have a planned child.
There would only be a need to make 'reversibly infertile' the female of the species thereby rendering sperm effectively impotent. Healthy sperm will still be generated in a continuous process unaffected by any immunocontraception, therefore freshly manufactured sperm will be immediately available when needed. The eggs in the ovary, on the other hand, already exist from birth and do not need to be 'manufactured' and any immunocontraception process will have little or no effect on the egg's ability to be fertilised when required.