Over-Population and the Environment

[SomeRandomGuy]

I have a friend who considers herself an environmentalist, and is getting ready to try getting pregnant with her second child. As a man, I realize that I can never really understand the complexities of this issue.

I would like to ask the mothers out there, how do you reconcile with desire to have children (or have more children) with the impact that over-population has on our environment?

I appreciate the feedback, as I hope it will help me to better understand the issue.

[Montrealonmymind]

I know what you mean sometimes I feel like just adopting when I think about things as literally as you are now. But for me personally on a real-life level it's not a decision based on "oh no! I'm adding another baby to this overpopulated world!" Because when/if I do have a baby it won't be on the streets. It's more about when will be the right time to have a baby that I can afford and that I can take care of emotionally as well. That is what is stopping me from having a baby right now not 'overpopulation'. And for the world as a whole it's probably better for me to be considerate before bringing another life on this earth. So I think that trying to be a responsible parent is more important then counting all the heads currently existing on earth. The reason why we're counting heads is because so many of those people are not taken care of and don't have a good standard of living probably because their parents didn't either and their parent's parents didn't either....and the vicious circle continues and no one is helping those families in need so that they may be able to raise future generations that will be better aware. I mean there are tons of parents who have one child and have tons of money but are raising 'poor kids' that are probably going to have problems when they are older. And then there are parents who have 5 kids but are the best parents on earth and do their parental duties and their kids are going to be just fine. I mean counting heads is not gonna solve the world's overpopulation problems - it's how you raise them to be responsible human beings that will.

[Eric Roosevelt]

I don't think the solution to environmental problems is to avoid having babies. What threatens the planet is not so much the number of people. It's our lifestyle. If you really want to "reconcile" the damage of having kids then donating to an environmental organization is one of the steps you could take. There are also special initiatives where you can "adopt a polar bear" amongst other things.

[funchy]

Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy

I have a friend who considers herself an environmentalist, and is getting ready to try getting pregnant with her second child. As a man, I realize that I can never really understand the complexities of this issue.

She's no worse than most people. At least she's not having a half dozen at once, like that crazy woman in California! Even worse if you have a 10+ kids, suddenly you're some sort of media hero. Everyone worships you it's all about the "joy of motherhood". How about this mom or this one who both just had her 18th child.

To some people talk of birth control is "immoral" or a "sin". It's "evil" to not want to bring life into the world (though nobody wants to talk about how to feed & care for them).

Most people say they're concerned for the environment, clean water, and global warming. Then they insist on eating meat at every meal.

In the US people say they like the environment, but many of them still "need" their SUVs which get under 20mpg.

go figure.

[Inthon]

Many of the costs of childbirth are now borne by the State (childbirth, education, food stamps, military). There is less of a sense of self-sufficiency and a greater complacency amongst those that have children.

As we enter a recession, hopefully people will realize that governments will not be able to afford this!

It is only a matter of time before more people get the obvious message: IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD KIDS, DON'T HAVE THEM!

[RT Wolf]

Not all of the mothers reconcile the two together. Some do stick by their stated ideals and decide not to have children. One of them, Kaye is writing a book on teh subject. More info here:

Kidfree & Lovin’ It!

I wrote a blog post on this myself:

The One Problem Causing Almost All the Others | Mind-Manual

There's a number of problems involved here. For example, say you adopt a kid from a third world country into a first world country. The lifestyle of the kid is going to be exactly hte same as a kid born here, presumably. Thus the kid is just going to consume as much resources as if you had your own kid. The only difference is that there's one less kid in poverty or whatever caused it to be adopted.

So, maybe you're thinking about the duplicity of the issue? Maybe she just doesn't think about it. A lot of people tend to lower their consciousness rather than face the issues. On the other hand, maybe she really does have her value structure setup so that motherhood is higher than environmentalism. Unless she's clearly stated that the most important thing in her life is environmentalism, then it doesn't have to be at the top of her value hierarchy. Beyond that, maybe she thinks that the kid will do more good, overall, than not having it.

So...I guess you'll have to ask her why she did it. I can only speculate, I have like five possible reasons up and I can come up with more.

[Lauxa]

If you look at it another way, every new person added increases the net creativity, imaginativeness, and production capacity of the human population of this planet. We don't really know what is "best" for humankind.

[Icantelleverything]

we also know ...what will happen when we reach the max...globle catastrophy....that is the way the news media will describe it.......but those in the know will say.....inevitable.....

[timothydrake]

Yes I believe the world is overpopulated and is like a disease on the planet. I'm sure you all have heard that humankind acts very very similar to cancer in terms of planetary devastation. Well until we find a way to grow responsible for this planet as a whole then yeah the planet is fooked. I just hope I die before it gets too bad.

[funchy]

Originally Posted by Lauxa

If you look at it another way, every new person added increases the net creativity, imaginativeness, and production capacity of the human population of this planet. We don't really know what is "best" for humankind.

Well to be fair... it also increases the number of murders, psychopaths, crooks, abusers, rapists, "evil", and hate-filled monsters. With the chance the next baby might be the next Marie Curie, the baby may also be a Hitler or Charles Manson.

It's a big risk to have a population explosion in the hopes that one or two of those people might have the cure to war, suffering, and abuse. I wish I had the faith in humankind you do.

Best for humankind is also a physical thing. How many natural resources does the planet have? Are we using them faster than the earth can replenish them? Does it make sense to drive entire species to extinction just so this generation can have a gourmet rare wild meat or cheap (pollution-producing) products?

What disturbs me most about the population increase is that our entire economy, government, and social order depends on the population growing. Each future generation needs to be larger and produce more to ensure that current generation's needs are met. To explain it better, look at it on a smaller scale. Look at a very small town that is suffering from a slowly declining population: the town dies, stores are boarded up, homes are abandoned. Now imagine when we get to the tipping point when the US population can't be allowed to increase due to food & resource shortages. Even a zero population growth risks bringing down the whole system. No new homes. No expansion. It would be like this recession but permanent.

We really need to rethink basing so much value on population growth. The earth is finite. At some point there MUST be a limit to growth, and we need to be ready for it.

[openeyes]

Originally Posted by Lauxa

If you look at it another way, every new person added increases the net creativity, imaginativeness, and production capacity of the human population of this planet. We don't really know what is "best" for humankind.

A good book along these lines is economist Julian Simon's Ultimate Resource:

The Ultimate Resource II: People, Materials, and Environment

from the intro:

"to a startling degree, the decision about
whether the overall effect of a child or migrant is positive or
negative depends on the values of whoever is making the judgment -
your preference to spend a dollar now rather than to wait for a
dollar-plus-something in twenty or thirty years, your preferences
for having more or fewer wild animals alive as opposed to more or
fewer human beings alive, and so on. Population growth is a
problem, but not just a problem; it is a boon, but not just a boon.
So your values are all-important in judging the net effect of
population growth, and deciding whether there are too many or too
few people.

"You might respond that additional children will never yield
net benefits, because they use up irreplaceable resources. We shall
see that additional persons produce more than they consume in the
long run, and natural resources are not an exception. But we can
agree that there is still a population problem, just as there is a
problem with all good investments. Long before there are benefits,
we must tie up capital that could otherwise be used for immediate
consumption."

Originally Posted by Icantelleverything

Oh yes we do.....we know how many people this earth will support....!!!!

And how many is that?

[jnms]

Ok, so this isn't an issue I want to comment on directly as I feel people are within their rights to explore life in any way they wish so long as it doesn't cause harm to others. That issue gets too complex if you look into it too hard.

Anyway it appears there are some people out there who feel there should be no more than 500 million people on the planet:

The Georgia Guidestones

MAINTAIN HUMANITY UNDER 500,000,000

IN PERPETUAL BALANCE WITH NATURE

GUIDE REPRODUCTION WISELY —

IMPROVING FITNESS AND DIVERSITY

UNITE HUMANITY WITH A LIVING

NEW LANGUAGE

RULE PASSION — FAITH — TRADITION

AND ALL THINGS

WITH TEMPERED REASON

PROTECT PEOPLE AND NATIONS

WITH FAIR LAWS AND JUST COURTS

LET ALL NATIONS RULE INTERNALLY

RESOLVING EXTERNAL DISPUTES

IN A WORLD COURT

AVOID PETTY LAWS AND USELESS

OFFICIALS

BALANCE PERSONAL RIGHTS WITH

SOCIAL DUTIES.

PRIZE TRUTH — BEAUTY — LOVE —

SEEKING HARMONY WITH THE

INFINITE

BE NOT A CANCER ON THE EARTH —

LEAVE ROOM FOR NATURE —

LEAVE ROOM FOR NATURE

[Angela Leeds]

Be careful whose "research" you follow about how the planet is overpopulated and affecting the environment... There's credible research pointing to the notion of overpopulation is a myth, akin to the hype behind "global warming". If this is a subject that concerns you, I encourage you to seek out a balanced perspective.

Personally, I don't encourage my own children to have children in these times when there is accelerating governmental control over children. And while I encourage responsible procreation and use of planetary resources... I don't buy the overpopulation concept at all, and see it as hype.

[SomeRandomGuy]

Would you mind providing some links to the research that shows overpopulation is a myth? I would love to read it. I can't see how how current population numbers and growth rate could not be a massive problem, but I'd be interested in reading some information that argues that point.

[Angela Leeds]

Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy

Would you mind providing some links to the research that shows overpopulation is a myth? I would love to read it. I can't see how how current population numbers and growth rate could not be a massive problem, but I'd be interested in reading some information that argues that point.

The subject is a complex one, and I am no expert, and certainly no activist, but you might want to begin with some of the links below and see where they lead you in your own research. I suggest looking for views debunking the overpopulation myth expressed from camps with opposing or disinterested agendas rather than all from those with the same core beliefs. In addition, go in the direction of learning why those in power might want a radical reduction in population.

Again, I am not a voice on this subject. I am just cautioning intelligent review and not allowing yourselves to be manipulated by well-crafted hype.

New Report: Global “Over-population� a Myth | www.asinstitute.org
basic-concepts
weekly-briefing
Washington Times - Taking on the overpopulation myth
Overpopulation Myths
Archive | May 8, 2000 | The myth of over-population
"Overpopulation"--Environmentalist Myth
| Illuminati News | New World Order: Elite Depopulation Agenda Gains Ground
Alex Jones' Endgame

It's one of those subjects that, IMO, isn't what it appears to be on the surface, and makes for fascinating study...

[Andrew Brunelle]

It's simple. The more food we produce, the more people there will be. It's simple and can be. Slow down food production and we'll slow down and even reduce population. It's not, "How are we going to feed all these people?" but "How are we going to stop producing all these people?" It's simply something that goes on with all species. More food equals more people. Stop producing so much food. Sure, some people will die, but there will be less people here to keep reproducing. Why are birth rates so high in impoverished countries? Because they have little food, so they have many children because they don't know how many will survive. And when we send food over there, we feed the problem because all those children will survive now and reproduce.

It's the laws of nature. The more people we have, the worse our environment will look as well. Less food.

[Infinite Knowledge]

Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy

I have a friend who considers herself an environmentalist, and is getting ready to try getting pregnant with her second child. As a man, I realize that I can never really understand the complexities of this issue.

I would like to ask the mothers out there, how do you reconcile with desire to have children (or have more children) with the impact that over-population has on our environment?

I appreciate the feedback, as I hope it will help me to better understand the issue.

I'm not a female, let alone a mother, but I'd just like to address your concern with over-population.

From your question I understand your concern is the impact over-population has on the environment, and how do women cancel out the negative that them having another child has on the environment.

Some say give a donation to certain "green" charities and foundations. Others have said living a "green" lifestyle would be enough to reconcile for another child.

My concern is simply that of over-population and is what I will address.

Is this concern in over-population US based only?

Because if it is, then I understand that concern.

Otherwise, in most parts of the world population is decreasing.

I have a feeling when you say "over-population" you're referring to world over-population, in which case your concerns don't come from a real problem - but more from an illusion of US political figures, as population is decreasing almost everywhere except the US - and that's due to our immigration laws.

In a global perspective none of you have anything to worry about. We just need to spread ourselves around the globe more efficiently.

Global over-population will become a problem, but no time soon.

And when it does, we just have to limit the amount of children per household like in China.

Again, this is no time soon.

Whether or not limiting the amount of children one can have per household is right, wrong, or immoral . . . it is a solution.

If your concerns were US based, then kindly disregard my argument.

I saw you challenge someone on the facts of over-population and asked for some links.

Here's an excellent source to prove over-population in the World as a whole does not exist.

Overpopulation: Myths, Facts, and Politics

And here's a little snippet of what is actually truth,

Over the years many researchers have authentically proved that the problem is not too many people at all. Contrary to the claims of family planning and population control specialists, world population growth is rapidly declining. United Nations figures show that the 79 countries that comprise 40 percent of the world's population now have fertility rates too low to prevent population decline. The rate in Asia fell from 2.4 in 1965-70 to 1.5 in 1990-95. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the rate fell from 2.75 in 1960-65 to 1.70 in 1990-95. In Europe, the rate fell to 0.16 - that is, effectively zero - in 1990-95. And the annual rate of change in world population fell from 2 percent in 1965-70 to less than 1.5 percent in 1990-95. Official forecasts of eventual world population size have been steadily falling. In 1992-93, the World Bank predicted world population would exceed 10 billion by the year 2050. In 1996, the U.N. predicted 9 billion for 2050. If the trend continues, the next estimate will be lower still.

I'd be more than willing to debate this with you.