Hacker News Reader

Comment by s_dev | Hacker News Reader

Overpopulation is an interesting problem, it exponentially affects every other problem we have -- some balance will have to be found between ultimately telling people they can't kids or maintaining that those people have autonomy over their own lives and can make such a decision. I don't know what the solution is - perhaps making the developing world developed as fast as possible.

View on HN

Overpopulation is a non-problem. Fertility has fallow to near- or below-replacement rate everywhere in the world, except Afrika (which will likely follow in the next decades.)

A nice talk from Hans Rosling on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA5BM7CE5-8

I love Rosling's talks.

This specific talk I feel he panders too much. The British surveys, for example, seem to have been made to take advantage of the anchoring effect to elicit more wrong answers, to the delight of the giggling audience.

I think perhaps you're conflating world population with the Chinese population. Overpopulation can occur in small areas without the world being too overpopulated as a whole -- most of them in SE Asia. If theres lots of people and limited resources, the math simply won't hold up. It affects issues like the environment and human health.

Singapore is doing fine at high population density.

Singapore is very developed. Overpopulation is more a problem for densely populated developing places - Bangladesh, Victorian London, South American shanty towns et cetera.

Yes. Though they only developed in the last 50 years.

Singapore doesn't exist in a vacuum. An enormous amount of foreign low population density agricultural land is sustaining their lifestyles.

You mean, it is not a problem because the planet can support that many? Or do you mean it is a problem, but it will solve itself? I don't think either is correct. The first is only true today because non-First World inhabitants are living on a much smaller ecological footprint than Europe and the US. However, that footprint is increasing rapidly. The second reading at least acknowledges there is a problem, but I think you are underestimating the correction required. I think the correction will not happen (at all, or fast enough) through natural means.

We are already at more than twice a sustainable population level. Even the most generous estimates I've seen place the Earth's carrying capacity at 7.7 billion people. But most estimates say that the Earth can support 2-3 billion people at modest levels of first-world consumption. The more our planet will be stripped of its resources now (whether through overfishing, destruction of forests, or climate change), the lower the sustainable planet population will become.

Put differently, we need to lose at least 5 billion people in the next decades without replacing them with a younger generation to be able to sustain the emancipation of emerging countries. It's not about population growth stabilizing, we need both massive negative population growth and halving of current energy use in developed countries. The only "natural" means through which I can see that happening is massive food shortages or horrific wars, and I think it's a pretty safe bet that the former will trigger the latter. It's also a pretty safe bet that our global society will disappear in that scenario, so I'd rather we have better solutions before that happens.

The earth doesn't have a "carrying capacity" or a "maximum population". The earth has resources that are used more or less sustainably at different times and in different places. If we all still lived like hunter gatherers we would have run out of resources and become extinct thousands of years ago. Luckily we've had social, economic, and technological development.

As soon as anyone frames sustainability challenges in terms of the earths "carrying capacity" they are revealing a bias that is unhelpful. Even if you accept the premise that the earth does have some 'maximum population' then so what? It's a useless proposition -- what are you going to do, force everyone to only have one child, that is unsustainable as China discovered.

Luckily, as the parent pointed out, overpopulation is not a problem. The rate of growth continues to decrease, and global populations will peak in my lifetime.

Eventually we'll have to reach other planets.. and invent wormholes to move past the universe expanding preventing our light cones from reaching other materials.

Aren't we a cancer that consumes the worlds?

It gives me an idea for a sci-fi story, where a stable civilization of smart beings faces a threat of the sphere of all-consuming humans expanding at the speed of light.

"Ecologists define carrying capacity as the maximal population size of a given species that an area can support without reducing its ability to support the same species in the future" http://www.dieoff.org/page112.htm

In the interest of (scientific) discourse, it is generally unhelpful to redefine or ignore generic definitions. Are you asserting that the earth doesn't support any species, or that is perfectly possible to have googolplex people living on earth without reducing earth's ability to support googolplex people in the future?

I think the post is saying that defining the carrying capacity of a technological species is an exercise in futility. Malthus was writing about this many years ago - humans have a habit of raising the bar.

In answer to your googolplex question - I think it's safer to bet on the technology developing to support such a population than against it. (Though I think we'll either be extinct or an interstellar species before then.)

I (think I) understood the GP post, I just have very little tolerance for idiotic and easily falsifiable statements. Therefore, I chose to respond to the first sentence only, and ignore the rest of the post.

My use of that population number was simply that: a refutation of the assertion that the earth has no population limit, as it will be hard to argue that our planet can support 10^9980 humans per square millimeter of land area. A genuine "argumentum ad absurdum", to counter the GP's completely nonsensical opening statement.

I interpreted the opposition to using carrying capacity to mean that it's not helpful from the perspective of a technological species. If we had that many humans, the odds seem high that we would have a way to supplement resources available to use from outside Earth. Carrying capacity is really about an _ecosystem_ and the resources it can provide vs competition with other species. We effectively have no competition, and we can create our own ecosystems, so it's kind of a strawman to apply the wildlife biology concept to our understanding of how human populations will evolve in the future.

Ah, but that would have been an interesting discussion. We could have discussed the merits of carrying capacity with respect to a species that builds its own ecosystem, or whether it makes sense to consider the entire planet a single ecosystem. We could have a meaningful discussion about the various population estimates and what they're based on. Or we could have discussed whether it makes sense to consider ourselves in competition with future generations.

But instead of that, the initial reply:

- refused the basic premise that would have allowed that discussion, by indirectly positing that space on earth is infinite

- followed it up with a very questionable assertion that earth's resources are used "more or less sustainably" (which is already at odds with the previous assertion that resources are infinite, and ignores the many species we've already hunted to extinction)

- added a non-sequitur that we would have run out of resources as hunter-gatherers (again at odds with the initial statement)

- justified the plain refusal of the basic premise with an ad-hominem about bias

- continued on with the apathetic rationalization that nothing can be done anyway

- concluded by reiterating the initial statement without further substantiation

Now, you may argue that my refusal to engage in that discussion is my weakness and it would still have been possible to salvage something positive, however my time is finite and there's better, less taxing discussions to be had.

(/me out, accepting that meta-justification is considered offtopic and will be downmodded).

About 20 years ago, when I was a grad student, I attended a colloquium where the speaker (a physicist, for better or worse) had computed the number of people that the planet could support if everyone consumed natural resources at the rate that Americans do. His number was 2 billion. I don't remember who the speaker was and I don't know what assumptions he made -- I don't know how much error there might be in his result or how improvements in technology might change it. If his number is even close to being right, "global populations will peak in my lifetime" isn't even close to being adequate unless you expect the bulk of the population to be satisfied with remaining poor while a small proportion of the population devours the planet.

Which is a calculation based on current technological standards, which is also not proof that we will not become more efficient and better able to manipulate our resources as needed.

Ah, the good old "future generations will solve it, so let's trash this place"

Strawman. Strong environmental protections and positive population growth can coexist.

And, of course, we should be striving in our generation to solve these existential challenges, rather than squandering our time optimizing sales funnels and click-through-rates.

What are the "modest levels of first-world consumption" in the estimates you mention? And how recent are these estimates? There are many factors that likely will contribute to a smaller first-world footprint, e.g. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-will-burn-less...

http://agrpartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/AGR-Though...

This has a survey of capacity estimates on page 10. I took the median of those, which more or less matched the sources I've encountered over the past year.

Two of the estimates have years associated with them: 1994 and 1999. The survey itself was published in 2013 so didn't have the data available that fivethirtyeight cited. I think it's time for researchers to update their capacity estimates.

> "Even the most generous estimates I've seen place the Earth's carrying capacity at 7.7 billion people."

Can you show me these estimates? Do they take into account ways we could live with a smaller footprint (e.g. vegetarian/vegan diet) and/or advances in eco-friendly technology?

Denying people their meat or SUVs is an equivalent problem to limiting the number of children they have. People won't give their "freedoms" voluntarily - you have to force them either by law or by economy (and letting the free market take care of it will likely be too little too late).

The whole argument sounds to me like "we don't have to force people to change their lifestyle to adjust for Earth's capacity - we can always force people to change their lifestyle".

Are you suggesting most people have the same level of attachment to SUVs as they have to their fellow human beings?

I'm suggesting people have a smiliar level of attachment to being allowed to buy a SUV as they have to being allowed to have a child in the future.

Which is pretty visible in the West; every time the government tries to limit access to something, you get a stream of arguments that look exactly the same as those against one child policy that are posted here.

Would people miss what they never had though? What if public transport was so good that people just didn't need to buy cars anymore? As in, so good that there wasn't any practical reason to own a car. Would a generation of people raised with a strong public transportation system still find enough of a reason to use a car (aside from as a form of recreation)?

I think they wouldn't. That's why I find most of those objections silly - they're just something people got used to. It's like every time Facebook improves their UX, there's this huge uproar about the fact they dared to change things, but it dies out within a month as people get used to the new look and are still happy.

Sadly, no. I never bookmark or save articles as I come across them. It's a pity, as I've been searching for one specific article which compared our energy use with the total solar energy absorption of the planet (iirc, we were using more than 50% of total input).

As for your question, I doubt that they would include an all-vegan world scenario, as it's considered unattainable, regardless of whether it would theoretically help. Technological advances are generally included, but with very conservative gain estimates.

Historically, all such "carrying capacity" estimates have been shown wrong. What makes you believe the 7.7 one is any better?

I don't. But I've always been a glass-half-empty kinda guy, so I tend to err on the side of caution (or, in this case, catastrophe).

Quite frankly, it doesn't matter to me whether the "real" capacity is 1 billion or 20 billion or 100 billion, as I don't believe we (as a species) have any chance of moderation in the face of opulence. As long as there's any surplus capacity left on this planet, we will find a way to use it. As fast and as wasteful as we can, until it all comes crashing down.

> "Fertility has fallow to near- or below-replacement rate everywhere in the world"

What do you expect is causing this? Isn't a large part of the reason for this due to changes in society rather than a synchronised biological trend? For example, couples choosing to have children later, if at all.

If the reasons are social rather than biological, then there's no reason why birth rates (I'm using the term birth rates as it's a more general term for what we're considering) can't increase in the future. The view that overpopulation is a non-problem seems to be based on wishful thinking and/or short-sighted analysis.

> What do you expect is causing this?

- enormous reduction in child mortality - increased female emancipation and economic opportunities - (direct and opportunity) costs of child-raising becomes relatively larger when societies get richer

I don't expect any of those trends to reverse itself

> If the reasons are social rather than biological, then there's no reason why birth rates can't increase in the future.

Sure, and there's no reason why the worldwide decrease cant' accelerate further either. The only question is, why do you think some scenario is more likely than the other?

> The view that overpopulation is a non-problem seems to be based on wishful thinking and/or short-sighted analysis.

To me the view that population increase is/will be some huge problem seems to be continuously redressing the Malthusian nonsense that's been wrong for over 2 centuries

> "- enormous reduction in child mortality - increased female emancipation and economic opportunities - (direct and opportunity) costs of child-raising becomes relatively larger when societies get richer

I don't expect any of those trends to reverse itself"

Those aren't the only trends that matter. How about:

* Reduction in working hours/increased leisure time.

* Possibility for development of life extension technology (so long as this comes with an increased window of opportunity for raising kids).

* Changes to family structures (for example, an increase in popularity in tribe-like family structures, which reduces the burden on individual carers).

The point is if birth rate is only slowing down because of how our society currently is, then birth rate predictions are based on that society staying the same, and we have no guarantee of that being the case. Even if you think it's unlikely to change in the near future, humans will hopefully be living on Earth for thousands of years to come. If you were born 1000 years ago, do you believe you could predict how society would turn out in 2015?

Due to already declining birth rates, human population is expected to peak around 11 billion people in approximately 2100.[1] I will grant that the error bars are quite large, and that there is no certainty that the planet can handle even that number, but it bothers me that there are still people that seem to believe in Malthusian exponential growth.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

your source doesn't support your claim at all...

> "increase to 11.2 billion in the year 2100"

> "may rise to 16 billion by 2100"

> "forecasts between 9.3 and 12.6 billion in 2100, and continued growth thereafter"

> "World population to hit 11bn in 2100 – with 70% chance of continuous rise"

I was using the middle model. The lower model shows a peak of 8-9 billion in about 2050. The upper model shows continued growth past 2011. Hence, "large error bars." Anyway, I agree it is not the best source, but I didn't want to leave my claim completely without citation. If you investigate a bit, I think you'll find that my claim is consistent with UN estimates.

The people saying it's not a problem or that it will sort itself out are missing one crucial point - all the solutions for maintaining and/or stabilizing a big population require technology, which requires a technological civilization to exist. A technological civilization is not a stable, natural state, and industrial plants do not grow on trees. If the growing population destabilizes - let's be frank, Western - civilization, the world is fucked. The population will bounce back, with billions dying from hunger and war.

seems,that other forms of distractions and knowledge are the best presarvatives. But what about cultures that are resistant to education and therefore change?

Exit programs for the kids of the local religious nuts starting from pre-school?

that only moves the problem further along the road - much further, but still:

world won't be able to feed infinite humans so a restriction policy will eventually be needed (or systematic culling, depending on whichever comes first between enlightenment and desperation)

an interesting resulting problem of which is that population will keep aging. solutions will need to take into account non productive member in their older age, either balancing with equal amount of younger or culling from the top instead of the bottom of the age bracket

we won't likely see that in our lifespan, with some luck.

We can't feed infinite humans, but if we covered the earth with greenhouses, we could feed trillions of people.

Overpopulation causes many problems, being able to feed them is not one of them.

True it can feed and house many more people, but eventually we'll reach the cap.

Except in no part of the world of the modern world has human population increase continued unchecked.

Most western countries populations grow only because of immigration - fertility is below the replacement rate.

Overpopulation is the "problem" people trot out so they don't have to talk about things they might actually have to do something about, like switching to renewable energy sources, or improving women's education in developing countries.

Yes and that's why I included culling in the options. Doesn't need to be voluntary. Diseases, war, famine all are under the same umbrella.

No, you've still failed to comprehend the point: people, in general, do not have more then 2 children on average, as they increase their lifestyle.

Which highlights the other reason people talking about overpopulation are unsettling: suddenly everyone's playing psychopath.

So we have to increase the lifestyle of 2/3 of the world. The West is free to have 2 or less children on average. Africa doesn't give a shit, they're too poor to afford it - so their population grows.

making the developing world developed as fast as possible - With the cost of living increasing in India more parents prefer having 2 kids mostly in cities.

You mean like the problem of telling people they can't just drive cars or own firearms and need to meet some competence criteria first, i.e. licensing?

If so, I totally support the idea of licensing human breeding.

Unfortunately, that quickly leads into fashist territory (eugenics)...

That wouldn't lead to eugenics, it would very much already be eugenics.

Eugenics is about altering genetics by controlling breeding. Licensing decisions could be based on a broader range of criteria than just genetics. Genetics might not even come into it.

Unlikely. The perceived benefits of eugenics would be too tantalizing for those social engineers in control of "licensing" the right to reproduce. Robust markets for DNA sequencing and clinical already exist. It'd be a vanishingly small step to pivot those platforms for eugenics.

The licensing proposal is odious even if we were to (naively) discount conventional eugenics. Licenses would likely be tied to "merit", which is rather inextricably linked to socioeconomic class.

> "Unlikely. The perceived benefits of eugenics would be too tantalizing for those social engineers in control of "licensing" the right to reproduce."

What if the priorities of the eugenicists and other life licensers clash? For example, what if a known criminal was also the holder of some rare genes that would link up well with someone from the ruling class?

> "Licenses would likely be tied to "merit", which is rather inextricably linked to socioeconomic class."

So someone who is poor is of less "merit"?

>So someone who is poor is of less "merit"?

With the word in quotes like that? Absolutely yes.

Can you explain what you mean by that?

Poor people are, in general, treated as if they have less merit.

So they have merit in an absolute sense, but not in a societal opinion sense.

Explain to us what exactly is bad about eugenics in general, that is not related to Nazis doing their Nazi things because of their Nazi ideology?

Eugenics has an unacceptably high -- and excruciatingly documented -- risk of mutating into a demographic weapon wielded by racial groups that have attained dominance by historical coincidence against other racial groups. It is a long-dormant existential threat to large populations. The fact that this cluster of comments is discussing "licensing" the fundamental right of humans to reproduce is in itself a triumph of dystopian rhetoric.

Also, excluding Nazis from arguments against eugenics is like excluding Bolsheviks from arguments against communism. Spare me your precious Godwin's Law, Nazism is eminently relevant here.

> The fact that this cluster of comments is discussing "licensing" the fundamental right of humans to reproduce is in itself a triumph of dystopian rhetoric.

We're discussing limits on reproduction because this "fundamental right" is most likely going to fuck up the planet. Don't confuse basic capability with a "right".

> Also, excluding Nazis from arguments against eugenics is like excluding Bolsheviks from arguments against communism. Spare me your precious Godwin's Law, Nazism is eminently relevant here.

Yeah, I'd like to exclude Bolsheviks from arguments against communism too. It's not about Godwin's Law, but about having an actual argument other than "somebody tried that before once and it didn't work". How about exploring why it didn't work and how we can avoid that particular failure mode while reaping the rewards, without throwing the entire concept out?

Nazis are

> reproduction ... is most likely going to fuck up the planet

Malthusian fallacy. The idea of a "population bomb" has been indoctrinated into the modern mind of certain political orthodoxies since the late 1960's. It has yet to pass, because it is wrong. The jeremiads of Malthus and Ehrlich are myopic and dangerously lacking in imagination.

We will engineer ways to feed ourselves, generate potable water, control our climate, clean our air, and thrive -- all with a human population that monotonically grows over long periods of time.

> Don't confuse basic capability with a "right".

What does that even mean?

The fact that the same people who fight for esoteric rights of privacy and free speech disproportionately flip their semantic switch to cast the most fundamental human right in scare quotes is difficult to fathom.

> It's not about Godwin's Law, but about having an actual argument other than "somebody tried that before once and it didn't work". How about exploring why it didn't work and how we can avoid that particular failure mode while reaping the rewards, without throwing the entire concept out?

Here's an "actual argument": modern history. Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_eugenics. Arguments that an idea is grievously misguided based on broad appeals to disastrous periods in recent history brought about by that idea are valid in matters of social policy debate, which this is.

We throw the entire concept out because it is intellectually rancid. The taboo is justified. We should not touch eugenics, just like we should not touch proposals for disenfranchising women or chattel slavery.

> Malthusian fallacy

You're doing this again. Malthus was wrong with his prediction, but he wasn't wrong with noticing obvious limits to growth. It takes special effort to consciously stop noticing it.

> We will engineer ways to feed ourselves, generate potable water, control our climate, clean our air, and thrive -- all with a human population that monotonically grows over long periods of time.

You say that like you had any proof for it. Taken at face value, Malthus sounds much more probable than your "don't worry, future generations will somehow fix it".

> What does that even mean?

It means: just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

> The fact that the same people who fight for esoteric rights of privacy and free speech disproportionately flip their semantic switch to cast the most fundamental human right in scare quotes is difficult to fathom.

I don't flip any switch because I personally don't fight for privacy. I see the current levels of it as a historical anomaly, and generally something we need to outgrow as a society in order to progress.

> We throw the entire concept out because it is intellectually rancid. The taboo is justified. We should not touch eugenics, just like we should not touch proposals for disenfranchising women or chattel slavery.

No, this is dangerously irrational way of thinking. A hundred years ago you would taboo women voting. Two hundred years earlier you would taboo the concept of freedom of black men. What you're doing is just selectively tabooing your cherished belief out of fear your rejection may be wrong. If the belief is valid, it can stand on its own strength, it does not need protection from being discussed.

> Malthus was wrong with his prediction, but he wasn't wrong with noticing obvious limits to growth. It takes special effort to consciously stop noticing it.

Malthus premised his hypothesis on an assertion that there were obvious limits to growth. Both the premise of obvious limits to growth and the conclusion of catastrophic resource scarcity due to population growth were wrong.

Our food supply is an obvious limit to population growth like an unlocked door is an obvious limit to leaving a room. Yes, if you do nothing, then you will be limited. That should not instill hand-wringing, existential dread.

> Malthus sounds much more probable than your "don't worry, future generations will somehow fix it".

History has proven Malthus and his modern incarnation Ehrlich to be wrong time and time again, which doesn't bode well for that probability of yours.

Again, "don't worry, future generations will somehow fix it" is a strawman. Pithy, but vapid. Firstly, I said we will engineer ways to overcome limitations. Our current generation is, and will continue to, engineer ways to feed ourselves, generate potable water, control our climate, clean our air, thrive, and grow our population.

Do I have proof that the engineers of future generations won't all squander their life and do nothing more than optimize sales funnels and click-through-rates? No. But I think it is much more probable that our society will continue to produce some engineers that have not only the talent but the focus we need to break through our current brittle limitations to population growth -- just like their parents, grandparents, and every generation before them did.

> "If so, I totally support the idea of licensing human breeding."

That sort of licensing is ripe for abuse. What would happen if someone in power took that license away from you just because they didn't agree with your political views?

Then your problem isn't the license. The problem is your government.

I.e. If the license becomes a problem, it's because you've got bigger problems.

> "Then your problem isn't the license. The problem is your government."

The license will still be administered by someone / some group. Whether you call those with the administrative powers a 'government' or not isn't really important.

Not just political views.

Most people would agree that mentally ill people should not have children.

But what constitutes mentally ill? The line is fuzzy - perhaps someone is just a bit "quirky", but still could be a good parent?

In order to have a license the criteria would have to be crystal clear and added to the Constitution (sorry, US-centric). And even if in the Constitution, someone could abuse it (see: NSA, surveillance).

> Most people would agree that mentally ill people should not have children.

It is vastly oversimplifying, and prejudicial, to say something like that.

Many more people than you seem to think have experienced, or will experience mental illness in their life.

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/prevalence/any-men...

I could be wrong but I thought that was the point parent comment was making?

> Most people would agree that mentally ill people should not have children.

Turns out the definition of mental illness covers far more than the most extreme/visible cases so it will be unclear where to draw the line since "mental illness" is too broad a set

You are correct - that was my point!

> "Not just political views."

Yes, not just political views. As you say, the mentally ill would be one targeted group, former criminals would be another, etc... The most divisive issue would probably be whether those living in poverty would be given the license.

> "In order to have a license the criteria would have to be crystal clear and added to the Constitution (sorry, US-centric). And even if in the Constitution, someone could abuse it (see: NSA, surveillance)."

At most, I could imagine the benefits of taking precautions against accidental pregnancies (vasectomies, etc...), but only as long as those measures would be reversible at any time. I could also see the need for encouraging single child families as the least draconian method of population control (should overpopulation ever become a big issue). Anything beyond that strikes me as a step too far.

Most people would agree that mentally ill people should not have children.

Huh? They would? Are you sure about that?

I am provoking to make my point. "Mentally ill" may mean a dangerous psychopath, or someone taking anti-depressants.

Labels: Slippery slope.

How about: every one gets an unconditional license for having one child. That is, pair up with someone and have two children. No need to select subgroups, but enough to stabilize the population.

Are you going to force women to abort "unlicensed" children? Force women to have birth control implants?

Up until the 1990s in Spain, many thousands of children were systematically stolen from political activists and others with the wrong politics or wrong lifestyle. Parents were told that their newborn had died. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15335899

A less severe form would be financial incentives for licensed parents. You're still free to have children if you want, but you're only supported by the state if you got a license. Pair this with free birth control implants and abortions for everyone who wants them and you get most of the effect without the use of force. You could even pay men to get a vasectomy.

> You're still free to have children if you want, but you're only supported by the state if you got a license

This will only mean the most vulnerable (who need the most support) will be unsupported. You're creating an underclass.

If only certain people are encouraged to have children, you automatically have an underclass, no matter how it's implemented. I think that providing free (or more incentivized) birth control would lead to very few cases of unwanted children. IUDs and vasectomies are simple and effective.

> I think that providing free (or more incentivized) birth control would lead to very few cases of unwanted children.

You'd be surprised

I don't have data at hand, so I can't contradict you with evidence, but you could also provide some numbers with your claims. I know of Project Prevention [1], which pays drug addicts for long-term birth control. The Wikipedia article doesn't provide data on effectiveness, but I guess they'd stop handing out money if it didn't work.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Prevention

Effective enough to be worth the cost != effective enough to eliminate unwanted children

"You're still free to have children if you want, but you're only supported by the state if you got a license."

The traditional "license" to have children used to be marriage, and children born without such a license were called illegitimate - i.e. outside the law. It was an unjust system that hurt a lot of innocent children, and we've moved away from it for a reason.

> It was an unjust system that hurt a lot of innocent children

If the current system (where marriage and procreation are notionally separate) were found to hurt a lot of innocent children, would we call our system unjust and abandon it?

I suspect not. The current culture around marriage and parenting didn't evolve from pragmatism as much as (various takes on) ethics, morality, and self-determinism.

I would just let teenage children get free RISUG / hormonal implants and let them remove them or keep renewing them for free.

That alone will prevent many unplanned and unwanted babies in a population without any force, political, eugenics or racist overtones.

I don't know the long term effects of these implants so it's a tentative idea.

"If so, I totally support the idea of licensing human breeding."

In the context of America this was already tried

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#...

Sterilization and licensing are the exactly same mechanism - the state holds veto right over who gets to procreate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com