Would the world be better off if...

Sounds pretty much like a science-fiction scenario and I'm sure a lot of human right fighters are going to go crazy

Well in my opinion it's worth thinking about such things for the future. As I'm a person who dislikes persons getting kids even though they aren't able to feed them or offer them the education they need to get good jobs and match their own financial needs your idea of such a virus sounds kinda appealing to me.

On the other hand you still have to keep in mind that this virus would skyrocket the HIV/AIDS infections...but I'm sure if such a virus can be invented and globally spread a virus like HIV/AIDS would've been erased long ago.

And to e) I gotta say that it depends on the parents you get as lots of people would still be crazy jerks unable to raise kids because they're too dumb to handle their own life.

But anyhow cool idea you got there!
Disclaimer: I copy your disclaimer - no need to arrest me.

the population for one generation would be reduced to 1900s levels and then we would start to grow exponentially again. not that big a deal.

And if all of the men that caught the virus were stupid, ugly, and had other diseases then the human population would probably die off altogether. So, the main problem I have is that it reduces my personal choice for a suitable mate. If I met two men - one sterile but strong, handsome, otherwise healthy and intellegent (qualities I want in my children) and one not sterile but weak, ugly, has any other disease and unintelligent (qualities I do not want in my children) then I go with the first and be childless. I wouldn't adopt his child either.

That sounds good to me. There are way too many starving children in the world.

Why stop at one generation? Add safeguards that the majority of citizens have to agree on current qualifications each election period, and keep it forever.

sugar, you always have the option to undergo artificial insemination with the guy you like.

bill, i'm sure we could break the virus out every few generations when population levels and poverty rates skyrocket again.

While you are inventing that virus you better think up a new economic system as well because the one the world has would never survive.

this won't be a sudden decline in the population, just a very slow transition towards a declining population that will once again transition towards an increase once the next generation takes over unimpacted by the virus. i think it would be far smoother and steadier than you expect.

My line of argument:

I think that, although our world population is going haywire, depriving people of the right to conceive naturally is a frightfully dictatorial breach of human rights. People will not stop wanting to have children: they will just have to pay for IVF. So, it will cost millions more to the governments or individuals to have babies, for something- as the urge for most is to reproduce- that will not really curb growth rate in 1st world countries. As IVF often leads to triplets, it could lead to increases in some areas. But who would pay for such a scheme? Would there be IVF for all, as even IVF for all in the richest countries would really hurt the budgets. African and other third world nations would not be able to afford such plans, and so would be deprived of the right to have children. Famine, I know, but I think that it is EXTREMELY cruel to stop childbirth just because one's born in one continent or another. That's fascist. Either way, something like this would lead to strengthening a rich/poor divide.

On a related subject, I remember someone's idea of having to pass parental tests to have the opportunity to have a child... to try to avoid negligence...

All this is true. But the people stop being born into poverty. In a few generation, the middle class will be the poorest and poverty, terrorism along with many other problems disappear.

Do the ends justify the means? Especially when the means won't really hurt anyone?

I feel that to be discriminatory. If you were to be born in a poor family, would you rather suffer poverty, or have your parents abort you?

The assumption that the poor are to blame for terrorism and crime is wrong; though Cobbet's hypothesis that one defies 'a man with a full stomach to agitate' remains to be true, in some Arab nations, it is often the wealthiest people that disquiet. There will always be 'terrorism,' mark my words, as there will always be people who do not follow the rules.

If all but the higher echelons die out, who do you expect will do all the grotty, low-paid jobs that Africans and émigrés did? If the world were all upper class, starvation would most probably ensue.

Anyhow, when the means deprive all but the wealthy of a fundamental human right, whatever ends that may arise cannot justify it, at least to me.

abortion is different from this... this makes sperm immotile, conception never even occurs.

it's a completely seperate issue.

besides it won't be all but the wealthy, the procedure can already be done for a thousand, if the need for it increases, its costs would probably go down to a hundred or so.

anyways, don't take this suggestion seriously though.

it's just meant to illustrate how significant a role overpopulation plays in the world's population.

I know; it's obviously not a completely serious manifesto; I was just debating its worth.

I was using that as an illustrative example. Would you, if you were poor, prefer not to have been born?

Some people cannot afford €100; does this mean that they would be bad parents? What would you think of parental aptitude tests?

I think it would be better if I just ruled the world; no need to make a virus.

Centroles, if all of the men are infected by the virus, where are you going to get any potent sperm with which to inseminate women? Perhaps you could immunize only those men who are financially able to support a family. But in that case, how do you determine which baby boys will grow up to be worthy of fathering children?

How do you propose to stop the spread of the virus after one generation?

No one has an inherent right to reproduce. If you are unable to attract a mate, your genes are simply not going to be propagated. Evolution has ensured that men are attracted by beauty and youth (reflecting health and a long child-bearing period), women by money and power (ability to provide for her future children), so poor men lose out.

Before social services, most people did not have children until they were married, and they postponed marriage until they had the resources to support a family. In some cultures a young man could not get married until he (or his family) could afford to buy a bride.

The current system allows irresponsible people (who are often unfit to be parents) to have an unlimited number of children at government expense, while the more responsible people limit their families to the number of children they can support and educate. Welfare children are a drain on social services, requiring food, medical care, special education, and a higher risk of ending up in the prison system or becoming unwed mothers. It makes no sense.

I don't see how the percentage of people in poverty would diminish. There are necessary jobs that impoverished people fill which contribute to society. Do you think that after all the poor people are dead the jobs they fulfill would be rendered useless as well? The middle class would become fiercely competitive as managerial positions would dwindle since there would be less people to manage. And the dwindling supply of "target" positions for the middle class would lead people to suffice for the low wage jobs.

Also, it might result in pressure on corporate industry to accept some sort of child labor. All of the prosperous folks would want to retain their positions, so wouldn't it make sense for them to try and fill the employment positions with underage workers?

Unemployment is a natural part of a capitalist economy, however I do agree that the percentage of unemployed would lower somewhat.

And terror will still exists because terrorists will still be able to pass down their views and brainwash people. They can influence other people than their own children.

Overpopulation is a terrible problem, but I cannot support a barbaric act such as this, even if it did result in a nearly utopian society. In fact I don't think I could endorse anything that can be done to end overpopulation, because the only real solution I see providing success would be intentional killing, which doesn't jive with me. Instead, I'm going to go person to person and work from there. I guess, since I see "ridding" overpopulation as impossible, I choose to embrace that population and lift them up myself. The only real way to end poverty is for those who have to care for those who have not. My actions might be insignificant, but I hope they wouldn't be insignificant to the people I do meet.

Okay, how about in a few years when we have robots capable of doing all the manual labor. Would you support this then?

I havn't been following this thread carefully enough to contribute much with confidence, but I get the impression that two suggests have been made, or intimated at least, for dealing with poverty. Elminate poverty and eliminate the poor. I hope I'm wrong.

1. Over population is almost certainly the largest problem that the world faces at the beginning of the 21st century. Resources are finite, and distribution networks incapable of redressing resource imbalances. The population problem is greatest in those nations/regions least developed, and in lands that have already consumed a large portion of the their own natural resources. From far north-east Asia to south-west Asia, the population far exceeds the carrying capability of the land and water. Conditions are exacerbated by the introduction of automobiles that put further strain on the environment while more rapidly depleting oil reserves.

Traditional societies tend to have large families because child labor is important to family survival and well-being. Lacking modern medical facilities, mortality rates also tend to be high in the first five years of life. As economic conditions improve, the value of having large families diminish, and birth rates tend to fall. When children who have a better chance of surviving to at least young adulthood become more common, the cost of feeding and supporting large families increases. When the costs of large families exceed the value of having many children, then birth rates tend to fall.

The problem is that many traditional societies, especially in Asia, Africa and South America, are going to be increasingly difficult to drag into the modern world economy. They are just too poor in resources, or too wedded to outdated social structures to easily change. Even when the economy begins to improve, as in the PRC, the first impulse is to adopt the same wasteful habits that we in the West deplore, but can't seem to ween ourselves from.

Population can not be endlessly extrapolated inside finite systems. At some point, Mother Nature in the guise of famine will step in and address the balance sheet. Too many people and too little food results in mortality rates that are far larger than the birth rates, and population will fall. This has been an inevitable cycle in China and India for at least a thousand years, and it will almost certainly occur again, and there probably isn't much that anyone can do about it.

Mother Nature also can reduce "fix" the population problem by introducing a much less benign disease than the one postulated here. The Black Death was a key element in how Europe changed from feudalism to primitive market economy. For a thousand years Europe was very stable, some would even say stagnant, under feudalism and the Church. A flea comes ashore, and in a few hundred years the population of Europe decreased by significant percentage points. We know that disease in more ancient times decimated populations, and less than a hundred years ago the Spanish Lady killed more than the Great War. South East Asia is today a breeding ground for new viral infections, and it is only a matter of time before something very, very nasty gets out.

Neither of these two natural means of adjusting population is likely to mean the end of the species, but they have the potential for utterly altering the sort of world we live in.

2. In re. poverty. Poverty is a relative thing, and can not ever be eradicated. Say there is an island with a stable population of 1000. The islanders are fortunate that plentiful food drops from the trees, and that clear fresh water is available in numerous springs. The weather is clement, so most live in easily built thatched huts and wear little or nothing. In such a setting you might think that there was no poverty, but you would be wrong. Human societies are class societies, we naturally sort ourselves out into groups. Some groups have more prestige, and "wealth" than other groups. "Our" group claims our greatest loyalty and sympathy. "Our" group, which may only be a nuclear family, is "richer" than some, and poorer than others. The chief may have two fishing boats manned by those at the bottom of the social order, and the division of the day's catch won't be even either.

Of course, the world is more complicated than that idyllic island. In our world who is rich, and who is poor? The guy with only five million dollars is poor compared to Donald Trump, or Bill Gates. The guy who has a $100/month pension, social security and food stamps is wealthy compared to the crack mother who is reduced to prostitution. Two brothers with equal opportunities are reunited as they enter their fifties. One has been a beach bum for years, but has a paid for old VW bus. The other lives in a mansion that is mortgaged to the hilt and owes ten million to the bank for a business that is about to go belly-up. Who is the richer? One fellow will give you the shirt off his back, and the other can't afford to be civil. Who is richer?

3. I suppose that the ethics of adopting a policy to redress the population problem should also be commented on briefly. Who is to make such a decision, and what gives one the right to decide upon something so fundamental to all others? If we can justify your impotency virus, why not just embark upon some other sort of genocide? Toward the end of the 19th century Progressives, with the best intentions in the world (very like what you are proposing), formed eugenic societies. The purpose of the eugenic movement was to "improve the race" by sterilizing those who were mentally incompetent, who had hereditary diseases, habitual criminals, and a whole list of others who "shouldn't" be allowed to reproduce. Sound a bit familiar? This isn't so very far from Hitler's favorite hobby-horse, and after the holocaust we no longer have eugenics movements in civilized societies.