NROP: Population control – necessary or immoral?

As someone who is not the biggest fan of humanity, I sometimes wonder about procreation. Does the world need any more people who will run it all to the ground?

If you missed one of my posts on child cruelty and abuse, please feel free to check it out –> HERE <–.

Apparently, a mayor in France is giving out Viagra like candy. Why? Because he wants there to be more people in his village. Currently, there are 650 people that he is governing over. Unfortunately, because of the decrease in population, the local school might get shut down. The couples that qualify need to be between 18 and 40 years old. Do you want some Viagra, but do not live in Montereau? No worries. Simply move there and you will be given the magic pill, too! Reading the article, I wondered whether the pills would come in the mail, be available for pick up at the mayor’s office, or be given out at checkout at the grocery store. Unfortunately, as I read on, I found out that the decree issued last week was really a publicity stunt. No one came to pick up the medication. Even if someone came in, they would be sent away with nothing, because the mayor has no blue pills to give out. It was his hope for the news to garner donations to keep the school open.

There might be something in the French water because the mayor of a Sainte-Geneviève-des-Bois issued a decree forbidding people from getting sick. It was meant to direct people’s attention towards the terrible medical care in the area.

Going back to population control, I think we have all heard about the “one child only” rule in China, which was implemented in 1979. The law changed a couple of years ago, allowing two children per family. Because of the initial policy, China is struggling with an aging society. There are not enough young people to take care of the elderly. Even with the “relaxed” two kids policy, people are only having about 1.6 kids per family. The lawmakers are now considering getting rid of the rule altogether.

If you have ever been to India (or seen any footage from there), chances are that you know there are A LOT of people living in that country. The forecast shows that in 2045 India will have more people than China if they do not control their population. China’s territory is quite extensive. India’s is not. Where will all those people fit? The government is considering imposing a “two kids only” rule, but it is not a very popular idea.

Within only 50 years, Pakistan’s population had grown five-fold from 34 million to 171 million. Aside from encouraging contraception, the authorities are also suggesting having kids at least three years apart.

South Koreans are said to go extinct in 2750. When I read that, I scoffed. It is so far into the future that I would not worry about it. There are so many things that could happen before now and then that could cause a global wipe-out. The government of South Korea, however, if considering the future now and they are incentivizing people to have more kids by providing them with monetary support for every child. I am not sure if that is still the case, but in 2010, on the third Wednesday of every month, electricity was turned off in office buildings at 7.30 pm in hopes that people go home early and procreate.

Back in the 60s, Romania’s population growth was at zero. In order to combat that, elective abortions were banned and import of contraception was criminalized. On top of that, anyone who was 26 years old or older and did not have children had to pay a 10-20% income tax.

Child policies across the world: From restrictions to incentives


Have you ever thought that maybe the government does not care about women rights as they claim while fighting for all sorts of abortions, as much as they want to control the population? As I wrote this, I stumbled upon the Kissinger Report, which was composed in the 70s and declassified in the 90s. The subject of the document was: “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.” I wanted to share with you some of the population methods it included:

  • the legalization of abortion;
  • financial incentives for countries to increase their abortion, sterilization and contraception-use rates;
  • indoctrination of children; and
  • mandatory population control and coercion of other forms, such as withholding disaster and food aid unless an LDC implements population control programs.

If you would like to refresh your memory on the report, or if you are not familiar with it, feel free to take a look –> HERE <–. It is a fascinating read.

What do you think about the publicity stunts in France?

Do you think there are too many people on this planet?

What do you think about population manipulation?

Stay golden,



Did you enjoy reading this post? Hit LIKE.
Have some thoughts on the topic? Share in the COMMENTS.
Do you regularly enjoy my blog? Be sure to FOLLOW.
Are my posts getting lost in your busy Reader? Try SUBSCRIBING.


59 thoughts on “NROP: Population control – necessary or immoral?

Add yours

  1. Way, way too many people on the planet. We are fast using up all the resources at the expense of every other living organism on the planet and the human population is rising exponentially, with an extra billion people added every twelve or thirteen years. Amazingly though, I don’t think we’ll feel the full impact for another thirty years or so. In the meantime we will start to see more animals and plants disappearing, more migration of people from war torn and resource stricken areas to northern countries, more pollution, more deforestation and higher temperatures – not a great picture for our future! So in answer to your question – yes, population control is an absolute necessity. Sorry to be such a downer!

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Well said. I have always said the world has way too many people. I think population control is a necessity as well. I just don’t know how to best implement it. I myself have done my part, and have never had any children. But I am only one person.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. You’ve got a good point. It’s tough “playing God”. I do feel like something should be done, but I bet my ideas are not shared by everyone else. And who’s to say what the world really needs? Sometimes I think that it’s good that we’re corwding this planet, because it means the world will end sooner. We’ve done so poorly as humans that I’m surprised we’re still standing. Maybe the overpopulation is actually leading us to extinction.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. You’re not a downer at all. This seems to be a reality, and one would have to be blind not to worry. Your comment made me visualize the migrations. The poorer nations will travel to the wealthier parts of the world. Will the richer people move out and actually resettle the abandoned countries? I know why the migrations happen in the directions they are happening in, but is it possible to make the less desirable countries actually a bit better than the depleted and overcrowded western societies?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. That’s an interesting concept. I never thought of it that way. Maybe. But if that were to happen, wouldn’t it just make the population problem even worse, because if the “badlands” were to somehow grow to be prosperous, wouldn’t that just encourage more procreation once again?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Yes and no. I don’t think procreation would grow just because of the “bad” lands become “good”. But, I do think the cycle would continue, i.e. the people from the once good, now bad would travel to the good, making everything come crashing down.

          Liked by 1 person

  2. James Dobson and Kurt Bruner have written a fictional trilogy set in 2042, the year projected to be when the scale is tipped and the old and dependent outnumber the young producers. The political, moral, and theological debates in this series are fascinating and show the folly of people who try to play God and decide who is worthy of life and who isn’t. I highly recommend this series. The three books are “Fatherless,” “Childless,” and “Godless.”

    Liked by 2 people

  3. There are too many people. I have contributed by having 2 children. One of mine has had one, so far. Some places have fast-growing pops, others have slow or no, hence the meddling. It would be nice if we could redistribute people evenly, but that would require more meddling. Also people from X place would have to quit hating people from Y place, and THAT is not going to happen, thanks to meddling.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I don’t think it would be a better of hating others. It would be a matter of fairness. How would you decide on taking person A from country B and putting them with X in country Z? Not all countries are equal.


    1. I totally agree with you that power hungry people are hungry for power. I just wish people did not like extremes so much. That way we would be able to actually fix problems instead of creating new problems while trying to fix another.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. Yes. Too many of us. All crammed into this small space – shoulder to shoulder, face to face, skin touching skin, libido brushing against libido ….and then what happens? We just go and make the problem worse! If we had stayed a respectful distance from each other in the first place none of this would have happened.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Yup. The world, as it is, has too many people, and it doesn’t help that we’re not doing enough to manage the rising population. The number grows by the day and our resources greatly reduce at a similar rate. But then, what would we do? I myself am clueless.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Indeed.
      I have no easy solution either, so I choose the easier way – trust that we are getting punished for all the bad we’re doing and we are headed exactly where we belong – cataclysms and extinction (or at least survival of few). I know it’s very fatalistic.

      Liked by 2 people

  6. Way I see it, the world is gonna end eventually anyway; why rob someone of the same chance you had, to live, and make mistakes, and maybe do a good thing or two? I don’t know if that makes me a horrible person or a decent one… But the extreme polarization over things like this rather assures me that the world is probably going to wind up devastated by humans anyway, whether we number in the billions or a mere couple million. You can’t control human nature.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I could not agree more. That’s the thing – you never know what could happen as far as people and their actions are concerned. There might be someone very important that comes from somewhere we did not think was viable. I kind of go back and forth. I know humans are a terrible specie. But I do value life and I still hope for pleasant surprises.

      Liked by 1 person

          1. Good point. I suppose too much of either one can be detrimental. If everyone took everything into their own hands, I expect that might be problematic; But if everyone just sat around waiting for someone else to save them… Well. Ever watch Serenity? Miranda…

            Liked by 1 person

  7. Fabulous thought provoking and controversal post Goldie – nicely done.

    Do we have problems with over populations? Yes of course we do, it’s a global problem. Should families have twenty kids irrelevant to whether they can afford them or not? Well that is often a huge question and a topic in debate.

    We live in a world that has more people, reducing resources, a dying planet. we have people living longer now and medical industry’s that want to let people live longer despite them wanting to die.

    Our world in becoming in some parts more leisurely orientated, meaning people have more time on their hands and they can work less. we have high unemployment figures world wide meaning even more people are not working and even more procreation for fun, stress and boredom goes on.

    but this isn’t just one topic, it is a link to a chain reaction of topics.

    I read several weeks ago about a paper that had just been released [april/May] sometime that was basically saying that this year worldwide governments would have to start asking serious population questions about their own countries.

    People don’t like these topics for the emotional impact and the environmental impact – but population as a subject should be opemly discussed equally as much as other taboo topics – so nicely done Goldie 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I never understood people who cannot take care of themselves (financially) have a million kids. I know that they count on food stamps, etc., but other than that… I have no idea.

      It’s interesting that you mention the “leisurely orientation”. I know plenty of people who just coast. Who don’t care about work. But then there are people who work, work, work. It seems like there is actually LESS time. Why do you think “people can work less”?

      I wonder when I hear: “If we want XYZ, we need to do ABC by next year, or else…” It sounds to me like a scare tactic more than anything. However, I think many countries ARE wondering about all that. Hence – immigration and abortion issues.

      You’re right – it’s not a single topic. It’s a mix of many.

      Thanks for stopping by and having a read.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Fascinating read on that article, and your post. We are becoming too crowded at an alarming rate.

    Like many other issues that deal with the future of our species, population control is something that needs to be scrutinized very carefully, and dealt with equal care. However, where do we draw the line when it comes to morality? The issue of abortion is already a hot topic in the U.S. among some other countries. Though I prefer not to engage in that topic, I do wonder when the day will come when it will become acceptable to terminate young children or the elderly all in the name of population control… As horrific as that may sound, humanity has shown itself to be capable of nightmarish actions. Take a step in either direction, and gradually the lines will move. Is forcing a limit on childbirth acceptable, or is it a violation of a fundamental human freedom: to live? These are just a couple of examples as to how delicate this issue can become, and the debates that can and do follow like your post has highlighted.

    I was about to go into the impact on our planet and the effect our population growth has on it, but that strays into an environmental topic, though it still ties into this current topic, so I’ll keep it brief. As the population grows, so does our footprint on this planet, which in turn causes the destruction of natural habitats that can lead to more extinctions of various species which further disrupts the balance of our planet’s ecosystems not to mention the consumption of the planet’s limited natural resources. As we grow, and we will, how do we curb that growth so as not to reach a point where we suffocate from our own destruction of the ecosystem? This may not happen for generations, but the faster we multiply, the faster we’ll get there.

    It’s sad to see an article like the Kissinger Report shed light on the steps a major power will take to not just curb growth for the sake of population control, but for it’s own political desires and control. That’s not the kind of population control we need, out of political and corporate gain. If you factor in the subject from the first part that has to do with morality, and put 2 and 2 together, it paints a grim picture. However, it doesn’t have to go that way. Population control is something that needs to be addressed sooner than later, and in a way that allows people to keep their freedoms. Our growth has been met with the growth of technology as well, and that can possibly be what saves us. Human ingenuity, our ability to solve problems, and the thing that separates us from the animals; our self-awareness. With this (the human mind), technology, and working together (people from different fields of science, study, etc) we can find the solution to control our population growth even if it’s as simple as global awareness and tax incentives for smaller families (or families with no children).

    I’ve probably gone overboard here with this response, but these are just the tip of my thoughts on population control in a nutshell. You have a great piece here that’s thought-provoking and engaging, well done!


    Liked by 1 person

    1. “Scrutinized very carefully, and dealt with equal care” – so well said. I see all the negatives of humanity and I think we should put a stop to the root of all evil (human), but then, I realize the other side of the coin – the moral and ethical side.

      We are unnaturally prolonging life, but who should decide when medicine/ technology should be used to save a life and when it shouldn’t?Gene editing is already a thing in humans. So to me, it seems like we’re trying to make humans live longer. HOWEVER, I think gene editing will lead us to an early demise and who knows what kind of mutated monsters. The twins whose genes were edited are only said to die earlier than others. Now looking at it from the other side of abortions – I can totally understand the things you are worried about. How far will it go?

      I agree that the environment is a separate topic. A deep one, too. I’ve lived in a city my whole life (still do, but it’s different now) and enjoyed it. I knew there was life outside of the city. They stayed there and I stayed in the city. Both sides could come to visit, but in the end, we preferred our own neighborhoods. In the recent years, I grew to like the cities less and less. Way too many people. Way too much concrete. While on the way to my Memorial Day Weekend destination, I passed many less populated areas. It gave me hope. There IS a world outside of the concrete jungle. Yes, we are destroying A LOT, but there are still such beautiful areas at our finger tips. The problem, though, is that more and more people start discovering remote spots and they see it as an opportunity to turn those into everything else it’s not. LOL. If you want to live in the city – live in the city. Don’t by land outside of it only to turn it into a copy of the city you were escaping.

      Your solution seems so easy. Unfortunately people are greedy. Unfortunately there will always be someone who wants to get rich on other people’s backs. While all of the things you mention should save us, it seems to me that humans exploit it and use it against their own specie.

      Thank you for reading and sharing your thoughts. It definitely isn’t an easy one.


  9. Indeed. I agree that gene editing/manipulation can lead to our demise. While on the plus side we can cure disease, and live longer, it’s not without consequence. Accidental viruses, and even bio-weapons specifically engineered to end life come from this.

    I wouldn’t say that my solution is a solution, but rather an example on the simplest side of the bar. When I stated that technology, human ingenuity, and working together could produce a solution, I did not mention the opposite side of that coin, which you brought up, and I agree with you completely. There will always be people who crave power, wealth, and ill towards others. In that, human ingenuity, technology, and working together would still produce a solution to population control, but on the opposite end of the ethical and humane way that people are looking for. One where certain parties stand to gain from the loss of others.

    Thanks for your response to my thoughts!


    Liked by 1 person

  10. I don’t agree with population manipulation. I think people should be able to have how ever many children they please (that is if they’re capable and ready to provide for their children). However, I don’t know how people can go about fixing the effects of overpopulation without manipulation.

    A while back I watched a video the Vox Youtube channel. It’s called “Inside Hong Kong’s cage homes”. I felt shame for the negative spiral of thoughts I can sometimes have. I suddenly felt grateful for the space I live in, for the privacy. Have you heard of them? I’m rewatching as I’m writing this comment to refresh my memory. These cage homes are built inside one room to fit many people.

    According to the video, where as New York and San Francisco don’t have much land to build more homes to accommodate more people, “Hong Kong has a lot of green space” and that “75% of land is not developed.” From what I understood the government holds auctions for the land and sells the land for outrageous amount of money.

    After reading your post, I wonder if this is Hong Kong’s way of manipulating population.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. No, I have not seen that before. Thanks for pointing me in the direction of the video. I’ve seen the tiny homes in Japan, though. I guess it’s an Asian thing, since there are SO many people living so close to one another.

      It might be a way to control population. Who procreates living in a cage next to a couple of other families? Or maybe they are trying to make people have orgies? But on a more serious note, my answer is that Hong Kong is known for how rich the rich are. I think they are making the living space more expensive because they can AND because the rich are trying to get rid of the poor.

      Liked by 1 person

Hmm? What did you say? I did not hear ya.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Up ↑

Fun with Philosophy

Philosophy is all about being curious, asking basic questions. And it can be fun!

The Self-Talk Show

Your most important show!

A Crack in the Pavement

Bryan Fagan - Author

%d bloggers like this: