Population control - Yes/No?

[vMike]

Lets have a simple poll!


By population control I don't mean waging more wars and killing people (which some might say is not a bad idea either ), but rather limiting the number of kids we produce, either by some sort of government control: subsidies, taxes, or even laws, or by personal choice, family decision.

[Brutha]

By population control I don't mean waging more wars and killing people (which some might say is not a bad idea either

If you wage war, people get more kids.
It's counter productive. Even in Congo the population grows.

But if people are wealthy, they get fewer children. Therefore the best strategy to get population to a fixed numbers is to battle poverty around the world.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by Brutha

If you wage war, people get more kids.
It's counter productive. Even in Congo the population grows.

But if people are wealthy, they get fewer children. Therefore the best strategy to get population to a fixed numbers is to battle poverty around the world.

This is oversimplified. Ideology has more to do with it than wealth.

If you convert societies to sexual liberation they have fewer children. But if you have devout Roman Catholics who are rich, they actually have more kids, not fewer. The trick to curbing the Catholic birth rate was converting them to feminism and sexual liberation. There was a point in time when Protestants in the USA were being outbred by alarming rates because feminism had not taken hold among Catholics. After Vatican II and the ideological conquest of Catholicism by liberals, the Catholic birth rate dropped instantly.

The Rockefeller and Ford foundations are acutely aware of this fact, and so the main technique they use to accomplish their stated goal of population reduction has been promoting sexual liberation, feminism, and the social acceptability of homosexuality. Some countries have been more amenable than others.

[Brutha]

Ideology has more to do with it than wealth.

Wealth create opportunity to think and ponder over your life with usually reduces ideology.
But you are right that project such as increase girls education are also important.

The important thing is that the strategy seems to be working. Woman get fewer children without anyone to have be forced to do something.

[vMike]

Originally Posted by Brutha

If you wage war, people get more kids.
It's counter productive. Even in Congo the population grows.

But if people are wealthy, they get fewer children. Therefore the best strategy to get population to a fixed numbers is to battle poverty around the world.

think global, think big, WW3, hydrogen bombs

[AlwaysLearning]

I disagree with the basic premise that we need smaller population. We've got a long, long way to go before we run up against the world's *real* holding capacity; I'm reminded of this every time my girlfriend and I drive outside the city limit and see endless undeveloped land everywhere.

When it comes to people, the more the merrier. Imagine going to a theme park and it's desolate. Sure, there are no lines, but it's kind of meaningless without all the excitement and screaming. Imagine publishing hundreds of articles online and getting very little readership because there aren't enough people to read them.

Unemployment isn't caused by overpopulation, but by increased technology, and as Steve P is always pointing out on Twitter, we're wrong to blindly assume it's a bad thing. Most employment nowadays has nothing to do with directly supporting life-- another indicator that we're far from carrying capacity. Mostly people just create tons of crap noone really needs, intentionally built to fall apart, and if you don't work there, you work pushing imaginary money back and forth.

So far from enacting any of the proposed incentives to avoid children, we should go the very opposite direction. Give money to new mothers. Compensate parents for doing a task which adds far more value to society than most jobs.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Wealth create opportunity to think and ponder over your life with usually reduces ideology.
But you are right that project such as increase girls education are also important.

The important thing is that the strategy seems to be working. Woman get fewer children without anyone to have be forced to do something.

The point is that it's not wealth directly. It's "education" and feminism and sexual liberation that reduces the birthrate. There have been many wealthy communities with high birthrates. It just so happens that in the modern world, most wealthy communities are also liberated, educated and feminized.

[ar81]

Originally Posted by vMike

Lets have a simple poll!

By population control I don't mean waging more wars and killing people (which some might say is not a bad idea either ), but rather limiting the number of kids we produce, either by some sort of government control: subsidies, taxes, or even laws, or by personal choice, family decision.

Are you Chinese?
China implemented that measure long ago.

Wealthy people have less kids.
Make poor to be wealthier and you will control population.
You also may avoid your job to be sent overseas where poor are cheaper workers.
Fighting poverty is in your best interest.

[YourHumbleNarrator]

The categories are way too broad. I don't think "population control" should include personal family decisions not to have children or to limit the number of children they'll have. "Control" implies force, which I am strictly against in this case, but I'm for families making this decision for themselves.

In that context, do I think more families should restrain themselves? No, not for the purpose of keeping our numbers down. Our total population isn't an issue, imbalances within the systems we've created are. It's hard to take arguments for overpopulation seriously when a nation like the US uses, what, 25% or more of the total resources on the planet? And we're hardly the most populous region. Furthermore, our methods for producing and distributing things like food is hardly efficient or sustainable. I see no reason we can't produce just as much food (plenty to sustain ourselves) with simple lifestyle changes and alterations of our methods. (I.E., we need to drop/change the factory farming model, and invest in vertical farming.)

The only way the current population would become unsustainable is if we were thrown back into the stone age technologically, but if that happened control would be unnecessary. It would take care of itself.

[Brutha]

The point is that it's not wealth directly.

Wealth is the difficult problem. The others are easy

[Dreamline]

When I see the term population control, I don't think of "force." Is birth control something that is forced? Is self-control forced? It just a word meaning to stunt the growth of...whatever follows.

People need to seriously figure out ways to stop having so many kids. Globally. We know how. We need to get them to know how too. Not just knowing, but doing. Wear the condom, stuff the diaphragm up the hoo hoo, close the legs and say no, it's a bad time, I'm ovulating.

If you don't think population control is necessary, you have a vast gap in your knowledge base. I suggest google.

Jennifer

[openeyes]

Originally Posted by Dreamline

Is self-control forced? It just a word meaning to stunt the growth of...whatever follows.

Stunt the growth of ... self? Would this make self-control anti-personal growth?

[YourHumbleNarrator]

Originally Posted by Dreamline

When I see the term population control, I don't think of "force." Is birth control something that is forced? Is self-control forced? It just a word meaning to stunt the growth of...whatever follows.

I was speaking in terms of the broad definition the original poster was using. You'll note that I said I'm fine with birth control and the like just so long as people make the decision for themselves.

People need to seriously figure out ways to stop having so many kids. Globally. We know how. We need to get them to know how too. Not just knowing, but doing. Wear the condom, stuff the diaphragm up the hoo hoo, close the legs and say no, it's a bad time, I'm ovulating.

And how do you propose "we" do that? Sex is one of those things where even when it's in people's best interest to act a certain way, they'll tend not to. It's less of a problem amongst the mature and the wealthy (I'm including anyone in developed countries) but it still happens. About the only way you're going to get wide-scale population control, initiated by humanity, is to kill a few billion people.

If you don't think population control is necessary, you have a vast gap in your knowledge base. I suggest google.

Or I have a difference in opinion (this is hardly a clear cut issue), or I think focusing on controlling the population is futile and that we'd be better served by advancing technology so it's easier to sustain a large population.

We don't need to worry about population control. If what we have is unsustainable, there will be collapse followed by mass death. Nature is great at fixing its own problems.

According to those who say the population is out of control, we've already got way too many people. Even if everybody stopped having kids right now we'd stay overloaded until half the population died off. The thing is, we still need people to procreate even if we need fewer people overall, and who's going to be in charge of deciding who gets to procreate, or how much? And how would it be possible to enforce such a program?

I think I'll take my chances.

[AlwaysLearning]

Dogma: "An authoritative principle, belief or statement of opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true regardless of evidence, or without evidence to support it."

We should always beware of dogma. The "overpopulation problem" is an example of dogmatic lockjaw. People have been worried about it for so long that complaining about it has become almost a kneejerk action. Dreamline, when you say

If you don't think population control is necessary, you have a vast gap in your knowledge base.

you are, by avoiding the debate and insulting the opposing school, setting off red flags that this is, indeed, dogma. Not that that's your fault-- we're all doing the best we can with the knowledge we have.

There are a lot of arguments the alarmist can make, but none of them really withstand scrutiny. Noone here has really said anything about why overpopulation is such a threat. The usual talking points don't stand up to scrutiny: "We'll run out of food!" (our ability to produce enough food has been *growing*, not shrinking, thanks to technology) "We'll run out of space!" (we aren't anywhere close to using the space we have, and we'll be colonizing the galaxy long before there's nowhere left to build an apartment) "People are already starving!" (this isn't because of global food shortage, it's because of unequal distribution) "We'll run out of water!" (we'll improve desalinization technology before then) "Overpopulation causes pollution!" (no, that has other causes) "It causes social problems!" (same retort) "Traffic problems!" (go mass transit, see: Tokyo)

Overpopulation alarmism is total scarcity mindset. Life is about sharing and socializing.

NOTE: In researching under- and overpopulation, I've seen it's also a very politicized issue in the US. Overpopulation concern seems to be a liberal talking point while underpopulation concern is a conservative one. People seem to take sides based on the abortion debate. This is all further evidence of the dogma angle. Myself, I'm an unapologetic liberal, but that doesn't mean I'll lock steps with the hivemind. It should be stressed that there's no necessary link between one's stance on population and on abortion, since abortion is about individual rights, not global engineering.

[Brutha]

The usual talking points don't stand up to scrutiny: "We'll run out of food!" (our ability to produce enough food has been *growing*, not shrinking, thanks to technology)

Tell that to those people in Darfur who attack other tribes because they don't have any food anyone.
Or to those people in Rwanda where people killed there neighbors to get farming land.

(this isn't because of global food shortage, it's because of unequal distribution)

That's besides the point. Having fewer people makes distribution easier as well because you need less food.

In researching under- and overpopulation, I've seen it's also a very politicized issue in the US. Overpopulation concern seems to be a liberal talking point while underpopulation concern is a conservative one.

The overpopulation problem exists maily in Africa, the US has for example a ratio of two children per mother (for the numbers of countries follow the link I posted above(. I don't think that any conservative would say that Africa has an underpopulation problem.
Conversatives are rather worried that the wrong kind of people get to many children and that the upper class doesn' get enough children.

[Strem2]

Originally Posted by vMike

Lets have a simple poll!


By population control I don't mean waging more wars and killing people (which some might say is not a bad idea either ), but rather limiting the number of kids we produce, either by some sort of government control: subsidies, taxes, or even laws, or by personal choice, family decision.

When women have power in a society, there are fewer children per family. When women don't have power, the population grows.... This is natural population control.

This is an historical truth.

I don't subscribe to any other control.

[Barcs]

Rich people have less kids? That's news to me. From what I've seen, it's always the rich, religious families that have 5+ kids, many even reach 10. I think that humans need to be more responsible, and part of that should be controlling how many kids we have. I think there should be a limit of 2 kids per household, then tie the tubes. I read above somebody talking about how you drive out of the city and see tons of undeveloped land. That is GOOD. We need more of that. Imagine what it's going to be like in 15-20 years when the population soars to over 9 billion. You can guarantee that land will be destroyed. We do not need humans everywhere. Sure at an amusement park it's cool, but not where I live. I don't want to live on top of my neighbor. Just because there's room to hold more people, does not mean that we should do it. Also do not forget about the resources we are constantly using up. Traffic gets worse, energy/oil issues, the meat industry, the shipping industry causes more pollution, less forests = less oxygen, etc. If you enjoy seeing people everywhere you go, move to the city. But don't move the city onto the rest of us because you are too self righteous to limit the amount of kids you have.

[Brutha]

From what I've seen, it's always the rich, religious families that have 5+ kids, many even reach 10.

There might be some of those families but there not enough to outbalance the fact that poor groups of society get more children.

But don't move the city onto the rest of us because you are too self righteous to limit the amount of kids you have.

Moving to the city makes people more liberal and they get less kids

[AlwaysLearning]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The overpopulation problem exists maily in Africa

There's a very interesting movement to solve the problems in Africa (well, just Namibia for now, but it would work anywhere) by radically challenging the way welfare is done.

Here's a news article about a realworld test of the program: A New Approach to Aid: How a Basic Income Program Saved a Namibian Village This upbeat article will really change your ideas about overpopulation in Africa. And before anyone says "it's too expensive!" here's a quote:

The report also stated that the basic income could be funded through the tax system by increasing the value-added tax or income tax by a few percent. Only 3 percent of the [Namibian] gross domestic product, or €115 million, would be enough to provide a basic income for all Namibians.

The movement itself is here: BIG Coalition Namibia

[AlwaysLearning]

Originally Posted by Barcs

Rich people have less kids? That's news to me. From what I've seen, it's always the rich, religious families that have 5+ kids, many even reach 10. I think that humans need to be more responsible, and part of that should be controlling how many kids we have. I think there should be a limit of 2 kids per household, then tie the tubes. I read above somebody talking about how you drive out of the city and see tons of undeveloped land. That is GOOD. We need more of that. Imagine what it's going to be like in 15-20 years when the population soars to over 9 billion. You can guarantee that land will be destroyed. We do not need humans everywhere. Sure at an amusement park it's cool, but not where I live. I don't want to live on top of my neighbor. Just because there's room to hold more people, does not mean that we should do it. Also do not forget about the resources we are constantly using up. Traffic gets worse, energy/oil issues, the meat industry, the shipping industry causes more pollution, less forests = less oxygen, etc. If you enjoy seeing people everywhere you go, move to the city. But don't move the city onto the rest of us because you are too self righteous to limit the amount of kids you have.

I agree about the niceness of undeveloped land. The key to preserving this is not to limit population, but to limit consumption.

Incidentally, if there were a global limit of 2 children per household and it was actually enforced, this would guarantee eventual extinction of the human race, since not every household will have children and not every adult will even have a partner.

[openeyes]

Originally Posted by Barcs

From what I've seen, it's always the rich, religious families that have 5+ kids, many even reach 10.

For better or worse, I believe "religious" may be the key part of that sentence, not rich, as many religious families will have numerous children whether they're wealthy or not, but the wealthy, less religiously oriented families often have one or two kids, or none at all.

[MariconesUnited]

Good topic. I like thinking about this one personally.

Originally Posted by YourHumbleNarrator

And how do you propose "we" do that? Sex is one of those things where even when it's in people's best interest to act a certain way, they'll tend not to. It's less of a problem amongst the mature and the wealthy (I'm including anyone in developed countries) but it still happens.

Sex education. Including safer sex classes for all. I know this might seem obvious to some but there are still tons of people who are uneducated about the issue. Allowing abortion and paying for it is also another part of the solution.

Originally Posted by YourHumbleNarrator

About the only way you're going to get wide-scale population control, initiated by humanity, is to kill a few billion people.

China has already shown that you can do wide-scale population control through state enforcement. They infringe upon personal liberties however so I don't think we should follow their example. I'm just saying this to show that your assertion is false.

Originally Posted by YourHumbleNarrator

Or I have a difference in opinion (this is hardly a clear cut issue), or I think focusing on controlling the population is futile and that we'd be better served by advancing technology so it's easier to sustain a large population.

It's not like population control and technological advancement are mutually exclusive concepts. I don't see why it wouldn't be beneficial to pursue both. Ultimately the idea is to find a sustainable way to fulfill human needs and both population control and technological advancement can and should work in conjunction towards attaining that ideal.

Originally Posted by YourHumbleNarrator

We don't need to worry about population control. If what we have is unsustainable, there will be collapse followed by mass death. Nature is great at fixing its own problems.

If we can find ways that are less painful than collapse and mass death shouldn't we pursue those instead?

Originally Posted by YourHumbleNarrator

According to those who say the population is out of control, we've already got way too many people. Even if everybody stopped having kids right now we'd stay overloaded until half the population died off. The thing is, we still need people to procreate even if we need fewer people overall, and who's going to be in charge of deciding who gets to procreate, or how much? And how would it be possible to enforce such a program?

I think I'll take my chances.

Strawman aside, I think the idea is to promote ways to reduce our overall population growth without infringing upon personal freedoms. There are many ways of finding this balance as we have seen.

Another factor that should be addressed is beliefs. A lot of people still function in a "tribal" mindset, for lack of a better word. People believing they need to "grow their ranks" by having many offspring is a major problem in many cultures and religions. I believe this problem can also be addressed by focusing on what makes us human collectively and by taking active steps away from xenophobia. We are one race and we all come from the same origin. Part of a single big family in fact if you look at the big picture.

[Dreamline]

It needs to become socially unacceptable, but on a global scale. We need to get to the point where people look at your funny and whisper to each other if you drag six kids to Walmart.

Right now, people may consider controlling the growth of the world population to be important, and some may think it's greatly important, but we still get all cutesy pootsey when someone is pregnant, expecting, or pondering having kids. It's that "I'm all for being responsible as a species as long as that doesn't refer to me."

It may sound weird but that is about the only thing that will get people to stop and think before they bang is to make it expensive, like no tax credits but it should cost you extra taxes and/or make it shameful.

I know how weird that sounds. I really do. It know it could mess with people's mind's. I know the pro-lifers are going to assume it will mean scads more abortions. I know some other people will say that it will make the kids that ARE born have low self-esteem.

I think, at first, this may be the case but as time passes, it will be the norm to think very carefully about being sexually stupid. It used to be considered normal to bathe once a month. Now, such behavior is shunned in society.

Jennifer

[Strem2]

Originally Posted by Barcs

Rich people have less kids? That's news to me. From what I've seen, it's always the rich, religious families that have 5+ kids, ....

If you were responding to me, I didn't say "rich". I said where women have power the families have fewer children.

I don't believe the religions you are thinking of give much power to women.... Catholics won't allow a woman to be a priest. If she's not a priest, she can't affect change in canon law. Catholic men write the Catholic laws and Catholic men want "women to be barefoot and pregnant." They don't even allow condoms (except to prevent HIV, and only recently) and they don't allow birth control other than "rhythm" except by dispensation.

Women with power:

1. Sandra Day O’Connor – 3 sons
2. Margaret Thatcher – Twins, including a boy and a girl.
3. Laura Bush – 2 girls
4. Grace Kelly and Prince Rainier – 3 children
5. Joanne Woodward – 3 children
6. Jacqueline Onassis – 2 surviving children (even though Catholic)
7. Nancy Reagan – 2 children
8. Ireland – President Mary McAleese – 3 children although she grew up in a family of 9 children
9. Finland – President Tarja Halonen -- 1 daughter
10. Mozambique Prime Minister Luisa Diogo -- 3 children

I didn't leave out any women who came to mind....

[Barcs]

The key to preserving this is not to limit population, but to limit consumption.

This is true, however more people will consume more. If you limit consumption but continue to have a large population increase, people will starve.

Originally Posted by AlwaysLearning

Incidentally, if there were a global limit of 2 children per household and it was actually enforced, this would guarantee eventual extinction of the human race, since not every household will have children and not every adult will even have a partner.

Yes it most definitely would, however it would be more like a gradual decline and when we have less than a billion people we could obviously start having more kids again. Maybe 3 would be a better limit than 2. Any more than that leads to exponential growth, with the population near doubling every generation. Not everyone gets married and has kids, but most people do.

[buildabetterlife]

Originally Posted by vMike

Lets have a simple poll!


By population control I don't mean waging more wars and killing people (which some might say is not a bad idea either ), but rather limiting the number of kids we produce, either by some sort of government control: subsidies, taxes, or even laws, or by personal choice, family decision.

China is already doing this.

The moment another human being can regulate your ability to create life, you are no longer free.

The "overpopulation" myth is more collectivist propaganda to trump individuality.

[Michelle]

By instituting population control you are assuming that the planet cannot manage that by itself. The Earth is alive and has always acted to balance herself by whatever means necessary.

[ar81]

The problem of overpopulation is a matter of resources vs consumption.
US consumes 40% of world resources and has 5% of world population.
If all humans consumed at same rate of Americans, we would need several planets to supply all humans.

If US reduces its consumption to 5% of resources, I bet overpopulation would not be a problem because there would be enough resources to supply the whole humanity.