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.
Our Population Grows Beyond The Capablility To Sustain Itself.
← View full post
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.