MAY 29

How about ending tax breaks for people w/ kids? I don't see why they should be rewarded for bringing yet another individual into an already over-populated world. How about a tax increase for each kid? Afterall, they're the ones using public services like schools.

This is a thorny issue; that said, @cmaceachen, I think you're being less than pleasant on the topic. We have to control the population growth (I've commented on it here at EcoGeek before) though asking people to have one less child than they would have done otherwise. As well, beyond re-educating ourselves on the topic of population growth, we have to rethink how we (predominently in the "West"; but also in the up and coming super-powers of China and India) what it means to be successful (trying to live like we do in North America, just shows how separated we are from nature and sustainability). I have one child on the way and I do fear for the future for my kid; that being said, we can do better and must. We are being less than genuine with all our talk and lack of action. I have started to do my part (I can do more and am doing so, are you (to everyone, not a specific person)) by reducing my garbage to less than 1/3 that of the average Canadian; my recycling is better too. As for energy usage, electricity usage is down to 8.5Kwh/day, compared to the much higher Canadian average of something in the range of 15Kwh (I believe). I have also reduced my natural gas usage by 6% over last year, even with a colder winter (according to my Enbridge bills). Water usage is down as well (by about 20% and my wife and I eat about 85% of our food from organic and local sources.

I would never install something like this in my body. I don't even agree that population size itself is a problem. Humans can live sustainably enough if they choose to.

Speaking from the point of view of someone who just had one (outch...) I'm not quite sure how good this would be. I have to wait nearly 2 months before they test me to make sure I'm sterile. They say it takes up to a dozen or more 'uses' to clear out any lingering sperm in the plumbing. Being able to turn it on and off wouldn't be that great as you would have to wait weeks to be really sure you're 'clean.'

My $0.02...

@BlackMacX, I don't see what listing the things we do to lessen our impact on the environment has to do with the original post, but since you asked, yes, I am doing what I can. I rarely drive, I buy local and organic as much as I can, I'm a steadfast vegan, and, more on point, I have no children and have had a vasectomy.

I have to agree with Dan. I had to wait 6 weeks and 15 ejaculations to be tested. I'd assume the same would be true for those using the little device. I certainly wouldn't want to trust that this thing worked 6 weeks ago and everything is now flushed out. And if a few years down the line it malfunctions? How are you ever to know, until your partner ends up pregnant?

There is no such thing as sustainability when we increase our population every year. At some point, it doesn't matter how much each person saves in anything, the environment will be overtaxed just from the shear numbers of people.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

My guess is that this device isn't intended for repeatedly "toggled" operation. It's more likely for those who like the convenience of a vasectomy but are uncomfortable with the irreversibility. So, you could have it installed when you're young, turn it "off", wait a few/several years until you're ready for kid(s), turn it "on", have the desired number of progeny and turn it back "off". You'd still have to flush the system whenever you turned it off but, if you're only turning it off twice, that's not a big deal.

This would go a long way to having men take much more responsibility for birth control.

After having the vasectomy and now thinking of a very expensive reversal. I wish this was an option several years ago. I think part of the flushing process may be avoided depending on where the device is located. Leaving more of the tubing behind the device would leave less tubing to flush out.

I wonder what the impact of not reproducing really is. Generally speaking, the more "civilised" (read "rich") a population, the less they'll reproduce. So even if we decide to stop breeding, the less "civilised" ones will just keep at it like rabbits... I wonder what's really better for the planet in the long run. The obvious answer would be no humans, but that'd be a bit hard to implement eh?

@Bram. I certainly don't think that Western over-consumption = civilized. In fact, our massive consumption and throw-away lifestyle mean that we have a much greater impact on the environment than those in lesser-developed parts of the world. Although, it is true, as heavily populated countries like China and India develop, their impact will grow. One can only hope though (and it's already looking to be the case) that they will learn from our mistakes and catch up to (or even outpace) our own environmental concerns.

I tell you what, you hippies have gone too far. You want to solve population problems, you saw what one earthquake did in China. Let's just take out their major cities; India's too. We've got plenty of nukes.

These are people you're talking about and people are important. The Earth was made for us. Unless you want to try some crazy $hit like in movies and TV shows you're not going to solve this. What's really going to save the world is the market; it's already started happening.

I used to like this blog, but I'm tired of you crazy-a$$ed hippies and how we Americans are to blame for everything wrong in the world. You may as well rename this to hippytech!

Sorry World.

We here in America haven't gotten our retroactive birth control program up and running in order to weed out the whacked-out Joshua types....

--

We don't really need better birth control methods in the developed and rapidly developing world. Take a look at birth rates per country.

High birth rates are mainly found in largely agrarian countries. In places like that kids are an asset.

Birth rates naturally fall as countries become more urbanized. Kids become liabilities, got to feed and educate them. Can't really put them to work for much money.

With urbanization comes education for girls/women and more political power for women.

Start moving some of our labor-intensive manufacturing to places like Africa where birth rates are highest. Let them start developing and the problem will take care of itself.

"The Earth was made for us" hmmm, i know the tune that is sung to.....

bob, actually if you study the demographic transitions of any 'developed' country apart from china, the fall in birth rate comes well after industrialisation. it is most closely linked with; reduction of child mortality, accessibility of contraception, and most importantly education of girls.
all of which i would say are linked to emancipation of women, but tech solutions to contraception will always be welcome, if only for the previously mentioned effect of interesting and involving men in the process, and of making contraception as a whole a bit more cool, less embarrassing and more likely to be used.
getting on for half all pregnancies are still unplanned, even in 'developed' countries, and our kids use a lot more stufff, so you cant excuse us from the equation.

@cmaceachen, I would like to just clarify and possibly apologize; the apology is regarding any apparent attack I might have made on you personally. The clarification that I wanted to make is that yes, population control is important; but that it's not the only thing that must be done to help resolve Climate Change and our environmental impact.

That's all.

Cheers.

This is a battle already won by the de-populators. The birth rate in every industrialized country is less than the replacement rate (less than 2 births per female).

@BlackMacX, not at all, no apology necessary. I didn't feel you attacked me, and besides, I likely came on a little strong myself. It's the name of the game online i suppose.

Anyway, I totally agree. There are many fronts to tackle here.

@Joshua, seriously? I'm probably just feeding a troll here, but I have to say, no one actually thinks population control involves killing those who already populate this world. And even if I were to agree that this world was created for humans, which I 100% do not agree with, I would still feel the need to make this world a little better for those who come after me. Wouldn't you agree? After all, if you want to bing religion into it, does Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion not say that God placed humans as stewards of his creations? Doesn't that mean we should take care of it and step lightly?

Just to throw it out there, becoming a parent has actually encouraged a lot of people to be more green to preserve the earth for their kids. It motivates them to recycle, buy organic, and even reaches as far as their kids' schools, reaching kids that might not otherwise be exposed to a green lifestyle. I hope you don't interpret this as me supporting people having 6 kids, because I don't...

@Chica Grande, I certainty hope so (that becoming a parent will catapult my family's recycling, et al, even more than we do already).
@Joshua, I also hope you're not serious. I know from what I've read and believe regarding population control, that it doesn't involve killing people; it involves people not having as many children as they wanted. Not everyone will follow that; but that's okay, if the majority of people do, the hypothesis is that with the century, the global population would be lower than it is today. There would still be an increase in the global population as people are educated as to the benefits; but by 2030 or so, we'd start to see a steady leveling off and decline. Also, it doesn't penalize any country more than any other; all would be affected.

Dude that is soo cool. Leave it to the Eco geeks!

JT
http://www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com

@ cmaceachen
That's a pretty good idea. In fact when I think about all of the lost tax revenue from prior generations i just get incensed. Thats why i think all of our parents should have to pay back taxes on thier rugrats, in fact so should your grand parents, we'll just tally up the total that your existence has burdened society and we'll send it to your mom and dad.

Why stop there though. I choose not to drive a vehicle why should i pay taxes for the deadbeats that do, why should i jave to pay for your roads and highways. I'll pay for the sidewalks and we'll raise taxes on motorists. Splendid

@sean, I sense your are being facetious here. As far as back taxes go, well, obviously you can't charge back taxes for a time when there was no law for the tax. Bus as for your other point, absolutely! In fact, a good chunk of road construction and maintenance money comes from gas taxes and licensing fees. But why not all of it? You'll get no argument from me.

This is quite interesting - the article (in addition to some of the comments, lol)

I will have to agree with some of the responses here that this is more than likely not meant as a "toggle action insta-sterile come hither" device.

It is also nice to see advances in male birth control in a manner that does not involve medication and/or manipulating various hormones (ie, female birth control and the potential health hazards involved).

Nothing like shoving some experimental technology into my vas to encourage prostate and testicular cancer. No thanks.

Also, here's a newsflash for you treehugger wienies: overpopulation is a myth perpetuated by fat, rich white westerners who want to shift the blame and responsibility onto other cultures. The USA has a mere handful of people who suck up the vast majority of the world's resources. It is NOT a population issue, it is an issue of western culture's insatiable greed and materialism which is burning up the planet's resources. Stop blaming the 'brownies' in other countries for the problems that YOU create, fucktards!

Here's a newsflash for you treehugger wienies: overpopulation is a myth perpetuated by fat, rich white westerners who want to shift the blame and responsibility onto other cultures. The USA has a mere handful of people who suck up the vast majority of the world's resources. It is NOT a population issue, it is an issue of western culture's insatiable greed and materialism which is burning up the planet's resources. Stop blaming the 'brownies' in other countries for the problems that YOU create, fucktards!

I'm not going to stick some experimental tech into my vas just to please a bunch of ignorant treehuggers. I'm sure the guys who are dumb enough to use this are setting themselves up for testicular and prostate cancer.

http://www.duggarfamily.com/

When I jack off, I feel horrible just cleaning up with a towel or cumming in the toilet. I started eating my load because I dont want those caleries to go to waste. Thoughts?

To shoot blanks, or not to shoot blanks.... good thing it's not one of those clap on clap off things.

oh yay! i'd love to have a switch that can turn my man juices off by damming my man tubes.
i'd also love to be a fag who never eats meat and never has children because i don't want to leave any mark of my existence behind on this planet, even if it is say... millions of years of people before me carrying on their legacy to create that wonderful little bundle of consciousness?
eh life isn't so great anyway, lets just not give the gift of it, fuck future generations, we don't need to spread our supreme awesomeness on any furtherer

@Ben, I sense some hostility possibly in your response...
As to blaming others, I am not personally doing that; the "West" has been the cause to a large degree of the problems and all, I will agree. The issue is not solely one of population, but of the entire issue as a whole. Nor is the idea that I've noted of population control one that blames anyone or unfairly penalizes people. As to your swearing and all, please look at yourself as well, you are likely rich by comparison to those less fortunate (I am as well) and just as likely a cause (by your extension of logic) as I am. We are all here to try and better not only our own actions upon the planet; but also help ensure we survive and live sustainably.

OH OH idea
why not fuck this whole long process of "Choice" and whatever, letting the people "sustain" earth by lessening the population
pshh
thats a bs way to go about things
efficiency.
lets kill all of you damned fuckers out there, you fuck ups ruining the planet
fuck all you resource wasting humans.
we can even be more efficient if humans would do themselves in.
this would be a great way of benefiting rest of the world and w/e people who are left behind too pussyish to do the world a favor.

I think this is all well and good as long as it remains a choice. Nature will control the population. Disease and famine take care of populations that get too dense. Dont be a coward when the world comes for you. Your part of it and its part of you. Everyone here was born and is thus part of the "problem". If we view overpopulation as an issue that needs to be corrected then we will suffer far more than you can imagine. Tyranny. Oppression. It'll be the same as if the world corrected itself only you wont be given the eventual death as a respite.

The people that ruined the world didnt do it with talk and protest they did it with a dollar. Know thy enemy and learn from him.

Western nations have already naturally limited their own population growth. So tax breaks and such (complained about above) are just to ensure they grow up in better circumstances.

Access, awareness and actual use of contraceptives in developing nations is the real issue, along with the women's rights and eliminating the infant mortality.

I'm not saying it is the developing nations fault -- it is our fault for not helping them more -- but I am saying that worrying about people in US and such having too many kids is unfounded.

Ben, overpopulation is NOT a myth. If it was a myth we would not have to send aid to many parts of the world.

IMHO Overpopulation occurs not glogally but at a local level. as soon as your population cannot be sustained by the resources immediately surrounding you then you are overpopulated. this is not a shot any any one people or country just facts.

the U.S. is over populated as are the majority of countries that exist hence we discuss "global overpopulation" but thats just a term saying that the entire planet even with resources distributed evenly would still be in some amount of trouble.

@sean

I would be fine with you not paying taxes for roads and highways if you would also stop receiving mail, stop using emergency services, stop buying basically anything from any store, etc. All of these things rely upon roads to bring the goods and services close enough to you that you don't need to drive. You benefit from the existence of roads even if you personally do not drive on them.

If it makes you feel any better, you are already paying less than the rest of us since you do not pay gasoline sales taxes.

@pogen, actually anyone who buys something or a service that uses roads would, and already does, pay for them. Do you think trucking companies / postal services / etc. would just eat the cost? Of course not. It would be passed along to the consumer. Therefore, anyone who doesn't drive (and so buys no gas or vehicle licensing) and buys all locally produced foods and merchandise would pay much less for the roads than those who choose to do otherwise. And that is, after all, what we all know is better for the environment.

this sounds like a cure for the poor bastards with p.e.

"...overpopulation is NOT a myth. If it was a myth we would not have to send aid to many parts of the world. "

Stop sending aid. If it is such a concern leave it to sort itself out. Artificially maintaining and environment that cannot sustain itself only promotes the problem. What happened before foreign aid? People migrated found new areas and unfortunately not every one lived a "good life" but, there wasn't all this talk about over-population.

How about you stop having sexual intercourse if you don't want to conceive?? God created MAN and WOMAN with reproductive organs and the desire to have sex is to procreate - so if you are inclined to think that what God set in motion is wrong - then become celibate. Otherwise stop playing God and stop wanting to punish those who do His will and actually allow Him to dictate how many children will be born.

@Lori, eh... not all of us believe in God. And many of us that do, also believe that he gave us the ability to make decisions and be creative and understand that our actions have consequences. Shall we just believe that God has removed all responsibly from what we do and taking care of it? Perhaps I'll just go out into a crowd and fire a couple of rounds. I'm sure God will make sure they hit someone that deserves it. Hmm, no one should be a doctor cause, if someone is mortally wounded or sick, must be God doing his thing. You see where I'm going here? For one thing you can't use a non-provable argument (God) to make a point. For another, if one were to accept your argument, the resulting reasoning (or lack thereof) could be applied to any number of obviously ridiculous scenarios.

The US is not overpopulated - take a drive out of the city sometime. We throw away 1/3 of the food we produce. Yet food prices are a relatively small part of most people's budgets.

In the US, each man woman and child would obtain ~8 acres of land if divvied up today. I can (and do) grow enough on a single acre of land to feed 7 people - healthily.

I do worry about our future - but so far industrialized countries are reducing in population. China and India have enormous populations which will (and have in the past) suffer greatly in a food crisis.

I don't agree with draconian rules - but perhaps we should require personal responsibility in concert with decent education and a healthier culture would make better sense?

The reason we subsidize children through tax breaks is that kids are expensive to parents now, but in the future, those kids will be the taxpayers who fund social security and Medicare etc. etc for today's generation of parents. If you don't have any children, you're not doing your part to fund your own future social services. That's why places like Russia are freaking out because they have negative population growth, and the government is starting to bribe women to have children.

Take into account that Arab, African and Asian countries will not adopt anything of the sorts in the next 100 years... Do you Americans and Europeans really want to become 0.01% of the planet's population, dooming the planet to a backwards Islamic Sharya regime?

Christians all over should start making 20 kids each, if you really want to reach the "Star Trek" age

The birth control device is an interesting way to stop conception.One more choice for someone to choose.That is what this article is about and nothing more,so take your liberal rants about your personal beliefs and go else where with them.

Haven't you folks been paying attention? GW Bush is keenly aware of the urgent populashun situation. It's not a "problem." All we gotta do is spend a few trillion Nuevo Euro Dollars (the galactic world currency after the US dollar becomes worthless) and then send some spacecraft to Mars. Then we gotta fInd where the oil is there on that savage red planet, set up a few missile bases and couple Wal-Marts. Once that basic infrastructure is in place, The Market will see to it that populashun will migrate and colonize Mars to exploit it as God almighty intended.

because of the growing market of men who want to regularly impregnate many, but not all, of the women they sleep with?
Is this really something which will be turned on and off every few days? Weeks?
Really, why is there a need for a remote?
If, one day, you want a kid, couldn't you just make the trip to the doctor's office?

The comments against the notion of "overpopulation" are over simplified.
In the third world, high population is due largely to high birth rate, with the limiting factor which determines "over" being food, water, and land.
In the first world, high population is due more to low death rates, and the limiting factors which determine "over" are energy and pollution.
While richer nations have less children per family, each child uses far more resources in their lifetime, making the overall environmental impact of, say, 2 children in America far greater than the overall effect of having 10 kids in Botswana.
However, like all forms of birth control, this is not attempting the end all reproduction, but only to give people more control over it. It eliminates unwanted pregnancy only.
In response to the "sex is for reproduction" argument:
If God had intended sex to be purely for reproduction, He would have made us, like He did most other species, so that females only had sexual desire when they were fertile, and males only had sexual desire when in the presence of a fertile female. The fact that we are physiologically capable of having sex at times when reproduction is not possible means that it serves other purposes as well. Sex helps to emotionally bond man and wife much as the physical act of breast feeding emotionally bonds mother and child. God created love, and God intended for love and sex to be tied together in the hearts and minds of mankind. A married couple should have the option of not having kids each and every time they have sex with each other.

May GOD have mercy on your souls. Yes there is a God and He and He alone decides these things. There are many, many examples of women their tubes cut, burnt and tied and also of men have vas. who still have conceived. This is a subject that is not up to us..it is up to GOD!!!! All I have to say is HOORAY!!!!for those of us who don't let you kind of people dictate to us. We choose to let the ALMIGHTY GOD do what is right in His eyes and His eyes only. Oh yeah and HOORAY!! for the Duggars and any other family who have decided to be Quiver-full!!..For this is Gods Will!!!!!
Again...
May GOD have mercy on your souls!!!!!

A home made and less invasive way to control your sperm is by submersing testicles in 102 degree water for 30 mins a day. After a week or so, there will be a decrease in your sperm count to "sterility" levels. Your sperm count will go back up to "fertile" levels after a few days of no submersion.

*This is based on my knowledge of a successful home experiment. I encourage you to try it - what do you have to lose except some sperm temporarily?

it's completely an argument about how wealth of any given society influences the birth rates. One thing is true.. overconsumption and greed is the main cause for environmental (and human) degradation.

Bottom line for this product, I LOVE IT. Birth control for men.. it'll take off, and it's about damn time!!!

It sure is about time! This would be an amazing thing to have as a man, assuming it worked 100% or very close too.