With a poll for fun!

The current world population is ~6.6 billion. You are given control of the reproductive rights of every one of those 6.6 billion people. You have two choices:

(1) Maintain the current population.
(2) Double the world's population.

If you answer (2), put yourself in the same situation with maintaining the new population as (1) and doubling the population again as (2).

Assumptions:
On (1):
a. This is the status quo option. Picking this option would be equivalent to non-interference.
On (2):
a. The quality of life of each individual of the population will decrease because of the population increase. This decrease in quality of life will be strictly less than 50%.
Note- If you have a massive problem with assumption 2a, feel free to express why but then answer the question as if you didn't.

Assumption 2a relies entirely on the idea that our quality of life is limited more by limited natural resources than human resources, and I just dont know if thats true. I dont know exactly how many people the Earth can support but it is certainly more than 6b and also almost certainly more than 12b. I dont know whether this assumption is valid or not but it seems awfully contentious, one of those things that seems true on a superficial first glance but that we really have no reason to assume its true on deeper inspection.

EDIT: That being said I picked (1).

What is the thought behind this poll?

It seems my choices are (1) don't interfere, or (2) force people to reproduce and have a lower quality of life. What exactly is the upside to (2)?

too late to edit my op unfortunately, but assume that people don't care what you do with their reproductive rights. basically that you can double the population at your whim, with no effects besides those the poll is trying to drive at (10 people happy vs. 20 people 51% as happy).

both alternatives require massive interference.

Then I'd rather be as happy as I am today rather than 51% as happy, tyvm.

Seriously? The way I see it the world already a far lesser place for having 6.6 billion people in it, and we're only just beginning to witness the environmental and social disasters that come from overpopulation. 1-2 billion seems optimal given our current resources, technology, and available land.

Equating option 1 with non-interference is a bit disingenuous.

If I were given control over everyone's reproductive rights, I'd choose to make the world population as a whole a bit smaller, but more than that, I'd choose to make certain people I believe are unfit have many fewer children, and certain people I believe are fit have many more. "More for everyone," "the same for everyone," or "fewer for everyone" are all choices that make very little difference to the relative quality of life in places A and B, or the relative well-being of people everywhere.

ok apparently i framed this question really badly so please can a mod delete this thread i'm going to post a new one

If all peoples use resources like Americans, can the earth support more than 2 billion?
Assume everyone use resources like Paris, Lindsey, and Britney. Can the earth support even 100 million?

It not like the people who won't exist as a result of keeping the population as it is are waiting in limbo suffering

Obviously there can be no other optimal answer other than to wipe out human existence (and thus their painful consciousness) altogether.

This is not up for discussion but is fact.

true

here's the more appropriate question

Which world is better?

A) 5 billion happy people (scaled to a 10 on the 'happiness scale!')
B) 10 billion somewhat happy people (6)
C) 30 billion not happy people but whose lives are worth living (3)

QUANTITY/QUALITY

Easy -- if I'm alive, then the world where I'm a 10 on happy scale.

You have no right to judge over the lives of others. Maybe you should stop fantasizing about population control.

There is a TON of unutilized or underutilized land, and its the failure to efficiently DISTRIBUTE resources, not the scarcity of resources, thats the biggest problem. As far as I can tell there is plenty of food and water and space for everyone by a wide margin.

Yes and probably yes. But I dont see how its really possible for EVERYONE to use resources like Paris, no matter how few people there are.

Yeah it is

ok, true.

I'll disregard the interference aspect completely and pretend it is not an issue:

I think two really happy people are preferable to 4 moderately happy people. That being said, if I had not been born as a result of this thinking, then I would prefer 4 moderately happy people.

dude what is wrong with you? this is a legitimate philosophy question, and one of the very few that actually has relevance in how we live our lives and what type of policies we should support. it has nothing to do with me fantasizing about population control (wtf?). moreover, the blanket statement of "you have no right to judge over the lives of others" is ridiculous. we make judgments about people all the time, in our personal lives and in government. if you want to get rid of all those fine, but then there's nothing to discuss, and i'd suggest psychiatric help.

also, about judging over the lives of others, well, i think you should take a look a bunch of your posting history and see how well that matches up.

ok, then you're not alive. what then?

My posting history always point to freedom. That's the opposite of controlling other people.

Your question has to do with controlling other people. There is no other way of making any of your fantasies real (as proposed in the OP).

Or maybe you've missed the people in history who also thought population and happiness control was a great idea.

yes that's the idea.

and the way people talk about this is as if it's only an issue for heartless utilitarian bastards, which is false. this is a question of making the world a better place. saying "i have no right" is dodging the question and not answering it.

i said that the op was improperly framed to suggest that there is some undue element of control involved. yet, you quoted my revised post, which should not be controversial in any way.

and i guess we'll just have to disagree about a good deal of your posts because that's obviously not going anywhere.