Our population grows beyond the capablility to sustain itself.

Technically there is enough to sustain us, for quite a bit too.

Go away u eugenics pusher. Maybe u and your family should be the first to be eliminated

Well all the options are psychotic so I choose "do nothing".

Your Title Grows Beyond The Capability To Capitalize Itself.

I don't want kids. So in a way, I'm already helping out.

I'm voting nothing since we're long overdue for a pandemic

Your posts are hilarious.

1 child policy is probably the most efficient and at the same time the most humane measure. 2 people making 1 child, that means in 30 to 40 years the population will decrease at least 40%, not to mention there's a lot of people who don't want children at all.

Finally, someone who cares. Ive been thinking of that too. Im a nature lover and hate the ignorance of destroyers. People and nature must have give and take relationship but its not whats happening. They are happy to accept what nature gives to them but angry in returning the favor. If the cycle stops and insufficient to sustain, the destruction will continue. Conflict will occur. The majority will only understand and realize the importance of something if they loose it.

I think we should globally regulate the number of children someone can have and have stricter laws, i.e. you must be financially stable before getting a child.
What bothers me is just that today, you need a license to drive a car, but every fucking one can have a child without any limitations.

We should definitely do something against overpopulation - otherwise, nature will do something about it, and it surely won't be a 'humane' solution.

We need to hurry to live on other planets...and also a one child policy is great

All these people who are concerned about overpopulation all seem to be extremely helpful in suggesting what happens to other people. If you want to save the world from overpopulation, go jump off a cliff. It will be more productive in the long run.

I remember reading a short story where winning the lottery gives the person permission to have children.

Pretty sure there are stats somewhere on the web that show that post-war periods actually have shockingly high natality rates and that wars can sometimes result in the increase in a population beyond predicted results (given a few decades time). I think this was the case for Russia post WW2 or something, but don't quote me on that, I haven't studied history for years.

Sterilisation is ridiculously difficult to enforce. Who will be sterilised? How will you force/encourage people to give up reproductive capabilities? I guess a restriction on the maximum number of children is plausible, but what would happen if someone breaks that law? What happens to the kid? What if one woman is pregnant with multiple foetuses? A restriction on children could also result in high taxes for the later generation, who have to pay pensions for the large numbers of elderly.

Doing nothing will result economic strain for a possibly indefinite period of time. The poorest people will die first, resources get so scarce that people of the "working class" will die and it'll only leave the richest of the rich. But they'll eventually die out because there are so few of them and there's no way they could establish economies of scale fast enough given their usual professions (bankers, CEOs etc). These guys could buy their way through centuries, but eventually they'll have to do something with their hands.

Honestly, I think random sterilisation at birth might be what would happen in the future. Actually. It probably won't be random, people are going to try and buy their children's fertility before they exit the womb. The government might enforce something like "every 4th pregnancy will have a forcibly sterilised child". Number is prone to variation and this concept won't exist in labour-intensive economies.

Adoption agencies are going to be overrun and children will probably be sold, and randomly sterilised people will have higher suicide rates than the non-sterilised.